Current Events

A blessing in disguise of a tragedy, if I can even dare say, is that it brings out the positive side of people all over. That was the experience of the Tibetan refugees in the immediate period following their escape from Tibet in and after 1959, when there was an outpouring of material and moral support from the international community.

In the past several days since the tragic earthquake in Dhingri (also written as Dingri) region in Western Tibet, I have been observing a similar kind of outpouring of support, this time from Tibetans all over Tibet and in exile.

On January 7, 2025, a strong earthquake struck in a primarily rural area close to the Tibet-Nepal border. While the China Earthquake Administration puts its strength as 6.8 on the Richter scale, the US Geological Survey placed the magnitude higher, at 7.1. For that matter, the two monitoring agencies also differed slightly in the exact location of the center of the earthquake (28.639°N 87.361°E (USGS) and 28.50°N 87.45°E (CEA).

According to China’s own latest public report, it said the casualties included 126 people dead (as of 12:00 local time on January 8) and 337 injured. But given the intensity of the quake, the landscape of the region, and China’s own report of “heavy casualties”, of 3,612 houses having collapsed (again as of 12:00 on January 8), and 27,248 homes having been damaged, many more people must have died. Knowing the opaque nature of the working of the Chinese regime, we will not know the real number of people who have died.

China has been publicizing its relief work mentioning the amount being spent by it, and irrespective of the veracity of the figures being quoted, that is their duty. Even Xi Jinping issued “special instructions” as well as chaired a politburo meeting of the Communist Party of China on January 9 on earthquake relief. Certainly, the Chinese authorities were aware of the international spotlight on Tibet and the sentiments of Tibetans in exile, and above all the positive impact on the affected Tibetans by the spiritual succor (although from far) being provided by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It may not be a coincidence that Xi Jinping’s meeting of the politburo happened on the same day the Dalai Lama had scheduled for special prayers for victims of the earthquake.

Even if the Chinese government had adequate material resources to provide to the affected people, only the Dalai Lama would be the one able to provide mental and spiritual solace to the people. This power of His Holiness can be seen currently from the public audience that he is providing to the elderly people in the Tibetan settlement in South India, many of whom are having such an opportunity for the first time in their lives.

Tibetans in exile as well as many friends and supporters throughout the world have been expressing their solidarity and holding prayer sessions. Many governments have either issued statements or made social media postings expressing their sympathy.

However, the advent of social media, even under the restrictive environment of China has enabled us to get a glimpse of the outpouring of generosity from Tibetans in different parts of Tibet. Individuals were voluntarily organizing relief efforts, taking trucks loaded with donations from ordinary Tibetans.

The sentiments prevailing was one of solidarity with the people affected by the earthquake, as is reflected by this just released song by four established singers from Tibet, Tenpa Gyaltsen, Nordon, Phuntsok Dolma, and Tseten Phuntsok. It is titled Dhungyang (Melody of Anguish).

Following is my translation of the lyrics in English to provide you with a bit of the flavor.

གདུང་དབྱངས།

Melody of Anguish

སྲིད་པའི་གངས་རིའི་འདབས་ཀྱི།
དབེན་འཇམ་ལ་སྟོད་གཞུང་ལ།
ཡམ་ཡོམ་ས་ཡི་འཇིགས་པས།
ཐལ་བའི་རྡུལ་གྱིས་བསྒྲིབ་སོང་།
Lying on the edge of the world’s snow mountains
The remote and calm Upper Pass*
Was by the might of the quivering earthquake
Covered with dust particles

ས་རྡོ་གས་སོང་མ་གསུངས།
བྱམས་དང་བརྩེ་བས་བསུབ་ཆོག
གཅིག་པོར་ལུས་སོང་མ་བསམ།
གདུངས་སེམས་མཉམ་སྐྱེད་ཞུས་ཡོད།
Don’t say that the earth and the stones have broken
(We) Will erase that with love and affection
Don’t think that (you have been) left alone
(We have) expressed our solidarity

རི་བོ་ཇོ་མོ་གླང་མ།
མ་འགྱུར་བརྟན་པོར་བཞུགས་དང་།
ཁྱེད་ཀྱི་བྱམས་བརྩེའི་པང་དུ།
ཕྱི་མ་མཇལ་བའི་སྨོན་ལམ།
The Mountain Jomo Langma**
Don’t change, but stay stable
On the lap of your love and affection
(We) Pray that there will be a meeting in the future

བློ་མ་ཕམ། ཡིད་མ་སྐྱོ།
ང་ཚོ་ནམ་ཡང་ལག་གདངས་གཅིག་ལ་སྦྲེལ།
Don’t be disheartened! Don’t be saddened!
We will forever be joined in hands

གངས་རིའི་འདབས་ལ་འཚོ་བའི།
བརྩེ་བའི་ལ་སྟོད་ཡུལ་མི།
སེམས་ཤུགས་ཡིད་ཐངས་མ་ཆད།
མི་ཡུལ་བརྩེ་བས་ཁེངས་ཡོད།
འཐོར་བའི་ཁྱིམ་གཞིས་དྲོན་མོ།
བྱམས་དང་བརྩེ་བས་བསྐྲུན་ཆོག
བྲལ་བའི་ཕ་མ་སྤུན་ལ།
གསོལ་བ་སྨོན་ལམ་བཏབ་ཡོད།
Living on the edge of the snow mountain
The affectionate people of the Upper Pass*
Don’t lose courage or despair
The human world is filled with affection
The broken warm homes
Shall be rebuild with love and affection
For parents and relatives with whom (you have been) separated
Prayers have been recited

རི་བོ་ཇོ་མོ་གླང་མ།
མ་འགྱུར་བརྟན་པོར་བཞུགས་དང་།
ཁྱེད་ཀྱི་བྱམས་བརྩེའི་པང་དུ།
ཕྱི་མ་མཇལ་བའི་སྨོན་ལམ།
The Mountain Jomo Langma**
Don’t change, but stay stable
On the lap of your love and affection
(We) Pray that there will be a meeting in the future

བློ་མ་ཕམ། ཡིད་མ་སྐྱོ།
ང་ཚོ་ནམ་ཡང་ལག་གདངས་གཅིག་ལ་སྦྲེལ།
ང་ཚོ་ནམ་ཡང་ལག་གདངས་གཅིག་ལ་སྦྲེལ།

Don’t be disheartened! Don’t be saddened!
We will forever be joined in hands
We will forever be joined in hands

*an epithet for Dhingri
** Mount Everest

As the four singers aptly put it, including through their ending gesture of solidarity, during this time of tragedy of the Tibetans in western Tibet, “Don’t be disheartened! Don’t be saddened! We will forever be joined in hands.”

As we come to the end of 2024, one interesting political development on Tibet was that on October 22, 2024 a “Joint statement on the human rights situation in Xinjiang and Tibet” by 15 countries was made at United Nations Third Committee session in New York evokes interest in quite a few ways. Here, I will only touch on the Tibet part of the statement as I am sure our Uyghur friends are themselves studying the more substantive East Turkestan (as Xinjiang is known to them) reference. The Third Committee is one of the committees of the UN General Assembly, the Social, Humanitarian & Cultural Issues overseeing human rights matters.

The statement, read by Ambassador James Larsen of Australia, was on behalf of the following countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

The joint statement recalled reference by UN specialized agencies to “detention of Tibetans for the peaceful expression of political views; restrictions on travel; coercive labour arrangements; separation of children from families in boarding schools; and erosion of linguistic, cultural, educational and religious rights and freedoms in Tibet.” It asked China “to fully implement all UN recommendations including from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ assessment, Treaty Bodies and other United Nations human rights mechanisms,” including release of detained Tibetans.

This statement is noteworthy as it is the first time in many years that such a reference to the Tibetan situation at the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee is being made. Over the years, we have seen regular attention to Tibet at the United Nations in Geneva where its Human Rights Council is located. There have been statements by independent UN Human Rights Special Procedures, experts, countries, but hardly anything in the sessions in New York.

I have attended sessions of UN, both in New York and Geneva, including during the time of the then UN Human Rights Commission (now renamed Human Rights Council) and its Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in the 1990s. In fact, I was in the conference hall in Geneva when a resolution on “Situation in Tibet” was passed on August 23, 1991 by the sub-commission. The sub-commission, which was renamed in 1999 and eventually done away with in 2006, composed of human rights experts from different parts of the world.

At that time, it was a Tibet-specific sub-commission resolution and was seen as a significant political message by a United Nations agency to China. As an aside, there was virtual silence in the room as the results of the voting (by secret ballot) on this resolution was announced. It was adopted with nine members in favor, seven against and four abstentions.

The sub-commission resolution on Tibet had mandated that the Secretary-General submit a report on the situation in Tibet to the main Commission on Human Rights, which was duly done during the Commission session in January 1992.

The 1991 resolution was the first on Tibet by a UN agency since the General Assembly passed its third resolution on Tibet in 1965. Since then, there have not been any Tibet-specific resolutions at the UN even though Tibet was included among issues regularly.

Thus, as welcome as the joint statement by 15 countries is, I cannot help but feel that over the years there has been a disconcerting development with governments either not able to or hesitating to raise issues like that of the Tibetan people substantively at the UN. This joint statement is a case in point; compared with the overall conditions in Tibet today, the statement is a generalized presentation of an aspect of the situation.

One reason for this development is the change in the political climate manipulated by China’s shrewd strategy. While the free and democratic countries were unable to adopt a cohesive strategy to deal with China’s human rights abuses, the Chinese government has, on the other hand, been able to alter the situation, internationally and within the UN system. China has been able to change the goal post by accusing the West of using Tibet, projecting itself as the leader of the developing world, and making governments believe that talking about Tibet is “sensitive topic”. Sinologists are directly and indirectly coopted to amplify the Chinese narrative by appearing to provide “balanced” analysis, emphasizing the need to consider “sensitive issues”. Even officials in the governments fall a prey to this Chinese government manipulation and latch on to the idea of needing to consider China’s sensitivity for almost any and everything. Therefore, we see governments feeling the need to unnecessarily preface any of their statements on Tibet with it being “part of the People’s Republic of China.” Despite the fact that the central work of the United Nations is in reality interference in the internal affairs of countries, albeit for the collective good, China uses the pretext of interference of domestic affairs to reduce the space for discussions on Tibet in platforms like that of the United Nations.

China is also able to bend the rules through different pretext to silence civil society groups by objecting to their accreditation on flimsy grounds. In January 2024, China objected to one NGO (whose focus was not human rights) as it was not using “UN terminology in referring to Tibet as the autonomous region of China”. “Correct terminology” was a repeated charge used by China for the past some years. In fact, in January 2020 at the meeting where accreditation of NGOs were being discussed, the United States reacted to this Chinese excuse. The UN report for the day says, “The representative of the United States said her delegation has serious concerns with any Committee member that insists that NGOs use so-called correct United Nations terminology as a condition for receiving consultative status. NGOs should be free to refer to “Taiwan” or to special administrative or autonomous regions such as “Hong Kong”, “Macau” and “Tibet”. Insisting on the use of alternative terminology would have the effect of censoring NGOs and stifling civil society voices at the United Nations.”

I have no doubt that it took lots of diplomatic discussions among the 15 countries to even come up with such a comparatively general joint statement. But have these countries thought of a collective strategy that is all encompassing when it comes to human rights abuses by China. On the part of China, the diplomatic strategy it has adopted included instigating smaller countries, particularly those whose own human rights situation is deplorable, to lead in combating efforts against China in the UN. This could be seen with the joint statement. After Australia spoke on behalf of the 15 countries in the Third Committee session, Pakistan had been lined up to speak on behalf of 80 countries that China had brought together and criticize the 15 countries. More than 40 of the countries were from Africa, while over 21 were from Asia, including the State of Palestine, which itself is ironically dependent on international support in its struggle against Israel. China herself, although joining the 80 countries, spoke separately to convey the impression that the 80 countries were doing this on their own initiative.

As governments thus decreased their role, a resultant factor has been the unintentional lowering of the collective expectations by the Tibet movement from the United Nations and the international community. Today, even the mere mention of “Tibet” is seen as significant.

Governments in the free world, particularly democratic countries in the West, have repeatedly been expressing their commitment to fundamental values like human rights, democracy and rule of law. In the case of the United States, these values are also connected to its national interest. Therefore, whether it is a reference in a statement or a more substantive initiative on Tibet, the United States and other like-minded governments need to see it as part of protecting national interest and less about protecting victims.

On the contrary, given current United Nations system, issues like Tibet become a part of international politicking rather than looking at it from its own merit. For example, the fate of Palestinians in Gaza and in general is garnering much international sympathy. Nevertheless, the State of Palestine cannot help but be part of UN politicking by China and is among those 80 countries that came in support of China during the Third Committee session, despite the fact that their own fellow Muslims, the Uyghurs, are the ones the 15-country joint statement was highlighting. Does this mean the Palestinians do not support the Uyghur people in their quest for human rights?

This can be seen from the remarks by General Assembly President Philémon Yang (from Cameroon) when the Third Committee saw the remarks on August 22, 2024. The official UN report for the day began with a quote from him saying, “Amid multiple global crises, the Committee’s work is vital in promoting human rights, shaping international norms, influencing national policies… From Gaza and Lebanon to Sudan, Ukraine and beyond, we see the devastating results of increasing violence, conflict and persecution…We cannot remain silent amid these and so many other crises.” Yang calls for doing away with silence, but ironically his own country was part of the 80 trying to silence the joint statement.

This also highlights the limitations of the United Nations. British-Nepali jurist Surya Prasad Subedi, who had also served as UN’s Special Rapporteur for human rights in Cambodia, succinctly puts it in his book, The Effectiveness of the UN Human Rights System, “The scorecard of the UN human rights mechanisms appears impressive in terms of the promotion, spreading of education and engaging States in a dialogue to promote human rights, but when it comes to holding governments to account for violations of these rights, the picture is much more dismal.” I would not even go that far. Governments have been unable to engage with each other, whether bilaterally or under the United Nations framework on issues like that of human rights.

Subedi argues most of the UN human rights mechanisms have remained toothless entities and proposes measures to reform and strengthen it by depoliticizing the workings of UN human rights mechanisms and judicializing human rights at the international level.

Although Tibetans console ourselves about the “justness of our cause” and hoping for support based on this merit, the international community has considerations other than that in deciding to raise, support or oppose human rights issues in international fora.

When governments and the United Nations fail to address contemporary critical situation they should ponder on why this might be happening. I would recall to them the statement made by His Holiness the Dalai Lama on March 10, 2002, on the anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising, in which he said, “Internationally, the majority of the governments are in agreement that there is an urgent need for joint efforts to combat terrorism and a series of measures have been adopted. Unfortunately, the present measures lack a long-term and comprehensive approach to deal with the root causes of terrorism. What is required is a well-thought-out, long-term strategy to promote globally a political culture of non-violence and dialogue. The international community must assume a responsibility to give strong and effective support to non-violent movements committed to peaceful changes. Otherwise, it will be seen as hypocrisy to condemn and combat those who have risen in anger and despair but to continue to ignore those who have consistently espoused restraint and dialogue as a constructive alternative to violence.”

In the weeks leading to Congress passing the Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act (S.138) in June and the bill’s signature into law by President Biden on July 12, 2024, there was an unusually strong media interest in Tibet, particularly in India. This was further heightened by the visit of a high-level congressional delegation to Dharamsala in June to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan leadership. The media directly linked the delegation’s visit to the passage of the legislation, and diverse analyses appeared on the timing and motivation of the American as well as the Indian government.

The congressional delegation meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala on June 19, 2024, Sikyong Penpa Tsering and Secretary Tenzin Taklha are sitting beside the Dalai Lama. (Photo: Tenzin Choejor, OHHDL)

First, what is this new legislation on Tibet? Here, as in the parable of some blind men describing an elephant from their individual perspectives, the legislation is being described by people in different ways, including by President Joe Biden, who issued a statement after signing it into law saying, “The Act does not change longstanding bipartisan United States policy to recognize the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas of China as part of the People’s Republic of China,” a standard narrative of the Administration (see below for congressional refutation of this). The International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) has outlined the actual content and the full text can also be read online.

To me, politically, the Resolve Tibet Act, as the Bill has popularly come to be called, is fundamentally the outcome of a realization by the US Congress that a new initiative to encourage the resolution of the Tibetan issue was needed in the absence of any movement in the past several years. The Bill asserts that “China is failing to meet the expectations of the United States to engage in meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives or to reach a negotiated resolution that includes the aspirations of the Tibetan people.” The Bill therefore states, “…the dispute between Tibet and the People’s Republic of China must be resolved in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Charter, by peaceful means, through dialogue without preconditions.”

On how such a settlement could be encouraged, the Bill’s premise is that China currently lacks legitimacy in its occupation of Tibet and the only way to attain any form of legitimacy is to resolve the “dispute” through negotiations without preconditions with envoys of H.H. the Dalai Lama. The emphasis on not having any preconditions is because Congress believes the obstacle to a negotiated solution is because the Chinese authorities are “including a demand that he [the Dalai Lama] say that Tibet has been part of China since ancient times, which the Dalai Lama has refused to do because it is inaccurate.”

This leads us to another aspect of the Bill, namely the historical status of Tibet. Point 3 of the Bill’s Statement of Policy says, “the People’s Republic of China should cease its propagation of disinformation about the history of Tibet, the Tibetan people, and Tibetan institutions, including that of the Dalai Lama” and Point 5 of its Findings assert that “The United States Government has never taken the position that Tibet was a part of China since ancient times.”

The Chinese government clearly understood this message from the Bill about Tibet’s historical status. Soon after it becoming law, in addition to the usual reaction issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry that it “interferes in China’s domestic affairs,” additional responses were also released in the name of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, both at the national level as well as by the units in the Tibet Autonomous Region. Further, statements were also issued in the name of “experts”. All of these make an effort to assert China’s historical claim over Tibet.

President Biden’s July 12 statement does not challenge the policy position outlined in the Bill about historical independence of Tibet. Rather, the statement appears to be more to placate the Chinese Government. An evidence of this can be seen from the US Embassy in China posting the White House statement both in Chinese and English and, lest the Chinese side miss getting the message, even terming it, “Important statement from President Biden on his signing of the “Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act.” “

拜登总统就签署“推进解决藏中争议法案”的重要声明。https://t.co/0phOA4jlFw https://t.co/UYZQF9919p pic.twitter.com/dwySRDrpPj

— Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) July 15, 2024

In fact, this Bill’s proponents in the Congress specifically wanted to challenge such statements from the Administration as they undermine US position. In a joint op-ed on October 14, 2022, the two House leads, Michael McCaul and Jim McGovern, laid out their reasons for introducing this Bill, “So why do American diplomats continue to say, “Tibet is part of China?” This kind of rhetoric undermines both the US position and the Tibetans’ freedoms. The CCP then uses it to support the lie that “Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times,” and the State Department perpetuates this propaganda by failing to rebut it. Young foreign service officers enter with the impression that, rather than an unresolved conflict, Tibet is an internal matter of China, which is exactly what PRC wants them to think.

“US policy on Tibet has lost its way. That is why we are introducing the Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Conflict Act. The bill would make it US policy that the Tibetan people have a right to determine how they are governed, and ensure that US policymakers accurately treat this issue as an unresolved conflict between Tibet and the PRC, not as an internal affair of China.”

In the light of the Resolve Tibet Act, the Administration now and in the future will have to be categorically clear on the historical independent status of Tibet or else they will be violating the law of the land.

Congressional delegation to Dharamsala

The congressional delegation to Dharamsala in June led by Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Michael McCaul certainly was connected to the legislation, but not in the way the media projected it. Rather than being a short notice political act to serve a narrow purpose, it was a project, the planning for which started in April 2022.

Sikyong Penpa Tsering, head of the Central Tibetan Administration, and ICT Board Chair Richard Gere were in town in April 2022 for a planned series of meetings, including a strategy session convened by then Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sikyong Penpa Tsering had brought with him communications from His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the leaders. Among the issues the Sikyong raised were a legislation to update the Tibetan Policy Act, and a visit by a congressional delegation to Dharamsala. Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues, including Rep. Jim McGovern, not only embraced both the proposals, but also began discussions on how to execute them.

As in the past, they also agreed on the importance of bipartisan participation in the initiatives. Among relative new friends of Tibet who the Sikyong and Richard met in April 2022 was Representative Michael McCaul, who was then the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. While subsequent meetings indicated McCaul’s own strong personal interest in His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Tibet, one of his staffers then was someone who had worked on our issue for another member of Congress with strong support for Tibet.

Representative Michael McCaul reading the communication from H.H. the Dalai Lama presented to him by Sikyong Penpa Tsering during their meeting in Washington, DC on April 28, 2022. ICT Chair Richard Gere is alongside him.

In a social media posting soon after the meeting with Representative McCaul, Sikyong Penpa Tsering said, “We discussed the critical situation inside Tibet and our collaboration and initiatives moving forward to advance the Tibet cause.”

Had the honour of meeting @RepMcCaul, alongside Richard Gere, Chairman of ICT @SaveTibetOrg. We discussed the critical situation inside Tibet and our collaboration and initiatives moving forward to advance the Tibet cause. pic.twitter.com/QGnOsFHcHL

— Sikyong Penpa Tsering (@SikyongPTsering) April 28, 2022

Representative McCaul not only expressed his readiness on joining the initiative on the legislation, but also expressed his keen interest in visiting Dharamsala. As he tweeted then, he referred to His Holiness as “one of the most inspiring spiritual leaders of our time” and also committed his support saying, “I will continue to stand with Tibetans and all those who suffer under the CCP’s oppression.”

Pleasure meeting with @SikyongPTsering and @SaveTibetOrg Chair Gere to receive a message from the Dalai Lama, one of the most inspiring spiritual leaders of our time. I will continue to stand with Tibetans and all those who suffer under the CCP’s oppression. pic.twitter.com/iZEKGv3enN

— Michael McCaul (@RepMcCaul) April 28, 2022

Thus, the execution of the two plans began simultaneously.

Two and a half months after the meetings, “H.R.8365 Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Conflict Act” was introduced in the House of Representatives on July 13, 2022, with Congressmen Jim McGovern and Michael McCaul as the lead.

Parallelly, discussions were going on between the Office of Tibet and ICT on the one side and congressional offices about the proposed congressional delegation to Dharamsala. Speaker Pelosi was trying to find the convenient time for such a bipartisan delegation.

In the meanwhile, the mid-term elections in November 2022 saw the Republicans taking over the House and McCaul became chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The first order of business on Tibet in the new Congress was to reintroduce the Resolve Tibet Act. Although senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Todd Young (R-IN) had introduced it in the Senate in December 2022, there was no time to complete the passage before the new Congress began in January 2023.

Thus, at the end of January 2023, we saw the legislation being reintroduced in both the Senate and the House. In 2024 the House passed it in February and the Senate passed it in May with some amendments. This necessitated the House having to vote once more to pass the Senate version, which it did on June 12. One month later, on July 12, 2024 President Biden signed it into law.

Screenshot of the final vote tally in the House of Representatives on the Resolve Tibet Act on June 12, 2024.

Chairman McCaul wanted to do a HFAC delegation that finally began to take shape early this year culminating in their visiting Dharamsala in June. Its members were: Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee; Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Speaker Emerita; Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), House Veterans Affairs Committee; Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee; Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), House Ways and Means Committee; Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Ranking Member, House Committee on Rules; and Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA), House Foreign Affairs Committee. The Tibetan community held a public reception for the delegation during which the members spoke about their support for the Dalai Lama and Tibetan people.

The congressional delegation with Tibetan legislative and executive leaders outside the Tibetan parliament house in Dharamsala on June 18, 2024. (Photo: Tenzin Phende, CTA)

It so happened that the timing of the delegation’s visit was soon after the passage of the Resolve Tibet Act by both the House and the Senate. Just as it took more than two years for this bill to be passed and become a law, the congressional delegation was also being worked on for more than two years.

In a statement before the visit, Chairman McCaul said, “This visit should highlight the bipartisan support in the US Congress for Tibet to have a say in their own future.” In the same statement, HFAC Ranking Member Gregory Meeks expanded on the objectives saying, “I’m also honored to have a chance to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and to hear his views on how the American People can help advance the Tibetan people’s struggle for autonomy.”

In general congressional delegations, both by members and by staffers, to Tibet and to the Tibetan community in the Indian subcontinent have played crucial role in the formulation of US programmatic and policy support. Chairman McCaul is the second HFAC chair to lead a delegation to Dharamsala. Way back in August 1997, chair of what was then called House International Relations Committee, Congressman Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY), led a bipartisan delegation to Dharamsala with Congressmen Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Eni Faleomavaega (D-AS).

Jerry Mander

In this year of climate disasters and artificial intelligence, a future of ecological and technological destruction feels as inevitable as the April death at age 88 of the author quoted above. But looking back at his writing, I’m convinced we needn’t accept such inevitability.

Jerry Mander (yes, that was his real name; no, he had nothing to do with election rigging) was an activist and advertiser for environmental causes. He’s best known for writing 1978’s “Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television,” a weighty treatise that lays out why, in Mander’s view, “television and democratic society are incompatible.”

Even 45 years ago, arguments against TV probably felt as quaint as arguments against mobile phones do today. But Mander had a knack for inspecting our casual acceptance of technology, investigating its ramifications and offering alternatives. We should get rid of television, he says, because of its (1) mediation of experience, (2) colonization of experience, (3) effects on the human being and (4) inherent biases. If you want to know more, I highly recommend reading the book.

Struggles of ‘native’ people

Mander advances his arguments in 1991’s “In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations.” This time, he broadens his aim to target not just TV but also computers and space travel. However, about halfway through the book, Mander pivots from critiquing technological society to hailing “Indian” (by which he means Indigenous) alternatives. That’s where Tibet comes in. (Disclosure: I’ve read “Four Arguments” in full but have not yet finished “In the Absence of the Sacred.”)

Mander, an American, focuses mainly on Native Americans. But in a later section of the book, he surveys the struggles of Indigenous people around the globe. About Tibetans living under China’s occupation, he writes:

The most well-known of today’s conflicts [between the Chinese government and “minority” groups] is taking place in Tibet. Chinese armies invaded Tibet in 1950 … Since then more than one million Tibetans have died resisting the invaders. In an open effort to forever suppress the elaborate and celebrated Tibetan culture, the Chinese have destroyed more than 6,000 monasteries, which also housed most of the Tibetan nation’s art, religious artifacts, and books.

I can imagine some of you shaking your head right now. A lot of Tibetans reject the “Indigenous” label, although some in the younger generation have embraced it (here’s a good explainer). Moreover, people like Mander, who exalt Indigenous cultures, risk promoting “noble savagery,” the belief that Indigenous people lived in a state of perfect nature before they fell under the control of “civilization,” a claim that critics deride as racist and ahistorical.

On the other hand, the Chinese government uses the opposite argument—that Tibetans are backward and in need of development—to justify its forced resettlement of Tibetan nomads and despoilment of the Tibetan Plateau. Unfortunately, even we Tibet supporters in the West can fall victim to this mindset due to the inherent biases of our “modern” world.

Myth of progress

There’s no doubt Beijing and the West have different visions of the future. But both are plagued by a myth of progress. This is the belief that change is necessary, beneficial and inevitable. According to this view, things are perpetually getting better. Hatred and bigotry are fading away; poverty and disease are disappearing; violence and war are vanishing from the Earth. At the same time, people are growing smarter and more tolerant, while technology carries us toward a paradisaic future. (In the Chinese version, there may be less emphasis on social justice, but the narrative of continuous improvement is still there.)

This belief has been a driving force of the West for ages. It was used to justify America’s own abhorrent colonization of native lands, and I think it lingers in our collective unconscious. But over the past few years, with the emergence of COVID-19, the eruption of war in Ukraine (not to mention all the wars happening in non-White places) and the return of fascism, it’s not so easy to believe in the march of progress anymore. (To his credit, Mander rejected this eschatology even during the boom times of the post-World War II era and the “end of history” period when the Soviet Union fell and liberal democracy looked destined to reign forever.)

My disenchantment with progress is partly why I joined the Tibet movement in 2018—because I believed that Western progress, rooted in the destruction of nature and alienation of people, was driving us off a cliff, and we needed alternatives from different traditions. As a result, I’m still a bit wary of using Western institutions and concepts like individual rights to defend Tibet from China’s predations, even though I recognize the usefulness of doing so. To me, that’s akin to expecting technology to save us from the problems technology has created.

I think it would be a mistake to frame our goal of liberating Tibet as the triumph of progress against the darkness of Chinese authoritarianism. I have no say in the matter—and as a non-Tibetan, I don’t deserve one—but to me, it would be a shame if a free Tibet ended up like just another cog in the liberal order, with a veneer of cultural difference but ultimately the same beliefs and same problems as the contemporary West. I don’t know what the future Tibet should look like, but I hope it will look better than what we have in the US today.

Things don’t have to change

That gets me back to Jerry Mander. In one of my favorite passages so far from “In the Absence of the Sacred,” he describes speaking with Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Turtle Clan, Onondaga Nation, who explains to Mander the Iroquois governance system. Far from the despotic chiefdoms that Native Americans are stereotyped as living in, the Iroquois instead had a democracy purer and more participatory than the “representative democracy” other Americans have.

Rather than majority rule, the Iroquois required consensus for decision-making. At council meetings, all adults had the right to speak, so long as they did not speak too loudly or try to dominate others. And the discussion would take as much time as needed. (Mander writes, “Lyons added that only in machine-oriented societies is there pressure to get human matters processed quickly, because society is moving at machine-speed.”) If three meetings went by without a consensus, the issue would be dropped. “We figure it will come up again some other time,” Lyons says.

Mander writes:

At first I was shocked by this idea of just dropping something that cannot be agreed upon. But eventually I realized that the Indian decision-making system is biased toward the idea that things don’t really have to be changed. They can stay the way they are. If some step really is needed—say there’s an attack of some kind—then a consensus will be reached and steps will be taken. The equivalent principle in American terms is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Save Tibet

Unfortunately, too many of us moderns, me included, are still trying to fix things that aren’t broken. We continue to adopt (or are coerced into adopting) new technology, from the smartphone a decade-and-a-half ago to generative AI today. The problems these technologies supposedly solve are generally made-up or not really problems at all—our species survived without an iPhone for 300,000 years after all—and whatever good they do is overwhelmed by the enormous harms they fuel: the destruction of the climate, the subversion of democracy, the crisis of mental health, the concentration of wealth and power, the rise of hate movements and the descent of humanity into a post-human future. If progressives really want the things they say they want, they might do better to turn the clock back on technology rather than forward.

The acceptance of these “innovations” is based in part on people’s belief in their inevitability—that even if we don’t want them, we have no choice but to assimilate. Adapt or die. That same belief shaped the attitude toward television decades ago. But one key takeaway from Mander’s books is that we don’t have to accept things we don’t need. We can choose to reject change that will subtract more than it adds.

When it comes to Tibetans, they don’t have to become Chinese. They don’t have to become Western, either. If they need to change—and the Dalai Lama himself has been a staunch reformer—they deserve the freedom to discuss and decide that for themselves.

As Mander writes, Tibetans “are considered among the world’s most refined people, psychologically, socially, spiritually, and artistically.” So rather than sail on to the next techno-utopia after trashing this continent and leaving it behind, we should seek to preserve the Tibetan civilization that China is trying to toss on the ash-heap of history. True progress isn’t colonizing Mars; true progress is saving Tibet.

One last thing: Carmen Kohlruss recently wrote a lovely piece for Tricycle magazine about the connection between Tibetans and Native Americans in western Montana. Check it out.

On this 30th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day, that’s one urgent takeaway from two recent reports chronicling Beijing’s subversion of the free press.

In its annual report this year, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China documents Beijing’s use of weaponized COVID-19 restrictions, surveillance, harassment and intimidation to stymie the work of foreign journalists in 2022. Worse, the Chinese government denied visas to foreign journalists and even kicked some journalists out of the country altogether.

At the same time, Beijing has increasingly polluted news outlets in other countries with its propaganda lies. That’s according to a 2022 report on Beijing’s global media influence by the watchdog group Freedom House, the same organization that recently rated Tibet as the least-free country on Earth alongside South Sudan and Syria.

Press freedom, like most basic freedoms, is virtually non-existent in Chinese-occupied Tibet. But that hasn’t stopped Beijing from exploiting media freedom in other countries to spread its fake news about the Tibetan people.

Lack of media access

In the Foreign Correspondents’ Club report, several foreign journalists say they had less freedom in 2022 to make reporting trips around China than they did in years prior. “Perhaps the most dramatic escalation has been the tendency to be followed by carloads of officials almost every time we report outside Beijing,” says the BBC’s Stephen McDonell. “Apart from harassing journalists, they intimidate and pressure those we are trying to interview.”

But one area where no escalation was needed is the so-called “Tibet Autonomous Region.” That’s because foreign media have long been denied access to the TAR, which spans most of western Tibet.

The TAR is the only region that the People’s Republic of China requires foreigners, including journalists, to get special permission to enter. “Access to the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) remains officially restricted for foreign journalists,” the club’s report says. “Reporters must apply to the government for special permission or join a press tour organized by China’s State Council or” Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

However, those press tours are organized to keep journalists from seeing the truth about China’s oppression of the Tibetan people. And the special permission journalists must get is rarely if ever granted.

In the Foreign Correspondents’ Club’s annual survey, three journalists said they applied to visit the TAR in 2022. All three were denied. Even those who were able to visit other Tibetan areas outside the TAR faced restrictions.

No longer trying

Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that so few journalists appear to even be trying to enter the TAR anymore. In 2021, four journalists in the club’s survey said they applied for permission to visit the region; all four were denied. In 2018, there were five applicants and five rejections.

The fact that even this small number has diminished over the years suggests that individual journalists don’t think it’s worth applying because they know they’ll never be accepted. Thankfully, higher authorities have taken up their cause.

In 2019, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club published a position paper calling on China to allow journalists “unfettered access to the Tibet Autonomous Region and all Tibetan-inhabited regions.” The paper adds that foreign governments should protest China’s intimidation of journalists who interview the Dalai Lama and request data from the Chinese government on journalists’ applications to report on Tibet.

The paper followed the passage of a pathbreaking US law, the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act. Known as RATA, the law pressures China to give US journalists, diplomats and ordinary citizens the same level of access to Tibet that their Chinese counterparts have to the United States. Under RATA, the State Department has banned entry to the United States by Chinese officials involved in keeping Americans out of Tibet.

What happens in Tibet doesn’t stay in Tibet

RATA became law in 2018, the same year I joined the International Campaign for Tibet. During my time as ICT’s communications officer, I’ve spoken to several journalists who have tried to visit Tibet for a reporting trip but were physically stopped by Chinese authorities.

Given these experiences, I can understand why some journalists might give up on ever trying to enter Tibet. But Tibet’s story needs to be told.

For one thing, the Tibetan people deserve to have their voices heard around the globe. For more than 60 years, they have lived under one of the world’s most brutal occupations. China has routinely violated their basic freedoms, including religious freedom, freedom of movement and, yes, freedom of the press. In this bleak landscape, it’s not surprising—but nevertheless tragic—that over the past 14 years, nearly 160 Tibetans have self-immolated, lighting their own bodies on fire in a desperate act of protest.

However, it is not just Tibetans who suffer from this repression; as much as China keeps a tight lid on Tibet, what happens there doesn’t ultimately stay there. Beijing’s brutalization of the Tibetan people has spread to other territories under its command, most notably Xinjiang, which Uyghurs know as East Turkestan. China’s genocide of the Uyghurs was initially led by Chen Quanguo, who honed his vicious tactics as the Chinese Communist Party Secretary of the TAR from 2011-2016.

Now, China’s repression in Tibet is fueling Beijing’s repression in other parts of the globe, including here in the United States. I am not just talking about direct threats and transnational repression against Tibetan activists in exile. I also mean China’s efforts to censor the truth about Tibet, spread disinformation and fool media consumers into believing its lies.

State media inside the free media

As Freedom House’s “Beijing’s Global Media Influence Report 2022” states, the “Chinese government, under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, is accelerating a massive campaign to influence media outlets and news consumers around the world.” The report adds: “The possible future impact of these developments should not be underestimated.”

While China has long sought to warp global public perception in its favor, according to the report, its efforts increased starting around 2019, when Beijing began to suffer the bad press of its crackdown in Hong Kong, its genocide of the Uyghurs and its attempted coverup of the origins of COVID-19, among other issues.

Rather than try to mitigate this public relations disaster by, say, telling the truth about COVID or respecting the rights of Uyghurs and Hong Kongers, China instead tried to muscle the media into submission. It did this via several methods.

One of Beijing’s primary tactics has been to place content made by or friendly to the Chinese state in news outlets around the world, including print, TV, internet and radio news. Such content appeared in
over 130 news outlets across 30 countries studied in Freedom House’s report. “The labeling of the content often fails to clearly inform readers and viewers that it came from Chinese state outlets,” the report says.

Through these placements, Beijing is able to reach a much wider overseas audience than its own state media would allow. And it can do so without having those audiences know clearly that they are receiving CCP propaganda. Worryingly, China appears to be aggressively pursuing more of such placements in foreign media outlets. Coproduction arrangements in 12 countries allowed China to have a degree of editorial control over reporting in or on China in exchange for providing the foreign journalists with technical support or resources.

China has also resorted to blatant bribery. According to Freedom House’s report, CCP agents offered monetary compensation or gifts such as electronic devices to journalists in nine countries, including Kenya and Romania, in exchange for pro-China articles written by local journalists.

Intimidation of journalists, including Tibetans

Then there are China’s attempts to censor foreign journalists. According to the report, Chinese diplomats and government representatives intimidated, harassed and pressured journalists and editors in response to their critical coverage, at times demanding they retract or delete unfavorable content. The Chinese officials backed up those demands with implicit or explicit threats of defamation suits and other legal repercussions; a withdrawal of advertising; or harm to bilateral relations.

Sadly, those demands have at times been successful. In one glaring example, in August 2021, China’s embassy in Kuwait pressured the Arab Times to delete an interview with Taiwan’s foreign minister from its website after the interview already appeared in print. The interview was then replaced by—and this is not a joke—a statement from the embassy itself.

Even more sadly, journalists from communities that Beijing oppresses—including ethnic Chinese dissidents—have been the target of some of China’s most coercive attempts at overseas censorship. Last year, Erica Hellerstein reported in Coda that a Tibetan exile journalist in an unnamed country was tricked into meeting with a Chinese state security agent who appeared to make vague threats about the journalist’s family members still living in Tibet. A few weeks later, a group of men ambushed the journalist as he walked home, throwing a black bag over his head and forcing him into a van that drove around for hours as the men grilled him for information and searched his phone.

The journalist reportedly quit his media career after that, fearful of what would happen to his relatives in Tibet if he continued his important work.

Social media spread

It’s not just the traditional media that Beijing is preying on; it’s also social media. According to Freedom House’s report, Facebook and Twitter have become important channels of content dissemination for China’s diplomats and state media outlets. However, these state actors are not attracting attention via organic interest. Instead they are purchasing fake followers and using other tools of covert manipulation.

As Freedom House states:

“Armies of fake accounts that artificially amplify posts from diplomats were found in half of the countries assessed. Related initiatives to pay or train unaffiliated social media influencers to promote pro-Beijing content to their followers, without revealing their CCP ties, occurred in Taiwan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. In nine countries, there was at least one targeted disinformation campaign that employed networks of fake accounts to spread falsehoods or sow confusion.”

One of Beijing’s most noticeable—and unfortunately most successful—targeted disinformation campaigns has been its deliberate amplification of an edited video clip of His Holiness the Dalai Lama interacting with a young boy in India. The clip, which takes the interaction out of its cultural context and suggests lurid intentions where there were none, went viral over a month after the interaction took place, thanks to suspicious accounts that appeared out of nowhere and helped get the clip coverage in major news outlets.

Disinformation and disbelief

It’s important to note that according to Freedom House’s report, Beijing’s influence campaigns have had mixed results so far. The CCP has failed to get its official narratives and manufactured content to dominate coverage of China in the 30 nations studied in Freedom House’s report. And domestic journalists, civil society groups and governments in the 30 countries have been at least somewhat effective in pushing back on Beijing’s efforts at manipulation.

However, I can’t help but feel concerned about Beijing’s potential for long-term success. On this 30th World Press Freedom Day, the press is in tough straits. Layoffs and closures have ruptured the industry. Vice, which provided some of the fairest, most informative coverage of the aforementioned controversy surrounding His Holiness, apparently gutted its Asia-Pacific news desk and may be preparing for bankruptcy.

As the financial void in journalism grows, China is positioned to step in with bags of money. As Freedom House notes, “As more governments and media owners face financial trouble, the likelihood increases that economic pressure from Beijing will be used, implicitly or explicitly, to reduce critical debate and reporting.”

This softening of the traditional media model comes with public trust already on the decline. As I wrote in a previous blog post, contrarians and charlatans are spreading conspiracy theories that catch fire among the alienated in society. And now the Chinese government is working even harder to sow division. As Freedom House says, Beijing’s campaigns have “reflected not just attempts to manipulate news and information about human rights abuses in China or Beijing’s foreign policy priorities, but also a disconcerting trend of meddling in the domestic politics of the target country.”

On this World Press Freedom Day, we must find ways to buttress free and independent media from China’s attacks, including perhaps by allotting more government and philanthropic funding to journalists. And we must use our own freedom of expression to call out the double standard that allows Beijing to block foreign media from its country while barraging other countries with its fake news.

The 10th Khalkha Jetsun Dhampa making the Mandala offering to H.H. the Dalai Lama on March 8, 2023. Photo: Tenzin Choejor/ OHHDL

First, a brief history of the Jetsun Dhampa institution. The first Jetsun Dhampa Lobsang Tenpay Gyaltsen (also known as Zanabazar) was recognized in the 17th century with the involvement of the Fifth Dalai Lama and the Fourth Panchen Lama and came to be accepted as the spiritual head of Mongolian Buddhists. The subsequent incarnations may have been involved in predominantly spiritual matters, but the eighth incarnation came to be known as the Bogd Khan and also became the political head of Mongolia. While the first two incarnations were Mongolians, the next six have been born in Tibet. The Jetsun Dhampa was also recognized as the reincarnation of Taranatha, head of the Jonang tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. Following the Communist takeover of Mongolia in the 1920s and after the passing away of the eighth incarnation, the then-Mongolian government banned the recognition of the Jetsun Dhampa.

The 9th Jetsun Dhampa

But the 9th Jetsun Dhampa Jampal Namdol Chokyi Gyaltsen was in anyway discovered in Tibet, having been born in 1932. When he was four years old, he was recognized by Radreng Rinpoche, who had by then become the Regent of Tibet after the 13th Dalai Lama passed away in 1933. But given the Mongolian political situation then, the recognition was not made public even though the reincarnation underwent his spiritual education. It was only after Mongolia became a democracy and its monastic emissaries went to India to request the Dalai Lama for information about the 9th Khalkha Jetsun Dhampa. Subsequently, His Holiness had this to say, “After Mongolia became free once more, I formally recognised and enthroned him where he lived in Madhya Pradesh” and the 9th Jetsun Dhampa’s public recognition took place on Jan. 13, 1992. As an aside, the 9th Jetsun Dhampa and I shared a train cabin at one time in 1993. We were in Sikkim for the Kalachakra Initiations that H.H. the Dalai Lama bestowed there and were returning to New Delhi by train. Following his public recognition, he was invited to visit Mongolia for the first time in 1997, eventually being settled in the country in 2010 and was given citizenship by the government. He passed away in Mongolia in 2012.

Although the Dalai Lamas in general have had a special relationship with the Mongolian spiritual leader, the 14th Dalai Lama says his family had a close connection with the Jetsun Dhampa. In 2013, during a teaching in south India, he explained this by saying people in his birth region of Kumbum were in fact closer to Jetsun Dhampa than to the Dalai Lamas. While he was growing up in Lhasa, His Holiness told the gathering that he would often find the young Jetsun Dhampa with his mother when he went to visit his family.

After the 9th Jetsun Dhampa passed away in March 2012, His Holiness the Dalai Lama took part in a memorial prayer gathering held in Dharamsala then. He also composed a prayer for the Jetsun Dhampa’s speedy rebirth and also publicly mentioned his belief that the reincarnation would be born in Mongolia.

Those who follow the issue of the Jetsun Dhampa would know that for the next few years thereafter, the Dalai Lama continued to update the public about the Mongolian spiritual leader at teachings that he gave in different places.

During special teachings for devotees from Mongolia who had gathered in the Indian capital New Delhi on Dec. 4, 2013, the Dalai Lama gave a reading transmission of his prayer for the swift return of the Jetsun Dhampa. At the end of the same month, the Dalai Lama was giving a teaching at Sera Monastery in South India, where again he referred to the Jetsun Dhampa and the prayer he had composed, saying, “This prayer refers to his previous lives and makes the wish that he come back in Mongolia as a scholar able to teach.”

In December 2014, at yet another teaching requested by Mongolian devotees, this time in Dharamsala, the Dalai Lama gave the reading transmission of his prayer for the swift rebirth of the Jetsun Dhampa. The Dalai Lama also “mentioned that he had encouraged him to take his next birth in Mongolia,” according to His Holiness’ website.

In 2016, on Nov. 23, during a visit to Mongolia, the Dalai Lama publicly spoke about the rebirth of the Jetsun Dhampa, telling the media then, “the boy is very young right now, so there is no need for haste in making an announcement. When he is 3, 4 or 5 years old, we’ll see how things are. Placing a small child on a high throne is not what’s important. What is much more important is that he is able to study and become learned so he will be able to contribute to the flourishing of the Buddha dharma.”

The Dalai Lama addressing the media in Mongolia on Nov 23, 2016 on the Jetsun Dhampa, flanked by Mongolian monastic leaders. (Photo: Tenzin Taklha/OHHDL)

The Dalai Lama also outlined his special reason for his interest in the Jetsun Dhampa. He told the media in the Mongolian capital Ulaanbaatar then, “Previous Jetsun Dhampas have been close to the Dalai Lamas in the past. I knew the 9th Jetsun Dhampa from childhood. As the time of his death approached, he asked me where and when he should pass away, which surprised me a little. However, during our last meeting, when he was already in poor health, I told him that it was important for him to be reborn in Mongolia. Considering the significance of his reincarnation and bearing in mind that he is a personal friend, I feel I have a responsibility to look after his reincarnation.”

Therefore, this is the background to the public appearance of the young 10th Jetsun Dhampa in Dharamsala in March. The occasion was a two-day Buddhist teaching on the Krishnacharya lineage of Chakrasamvara (part of the higher tantric practice) by the Dalai Lama that was requested by the main Mongolian monastery, Gandan Tegchenling, which is located in the capital city of Ulaanbaatar. The 10th Jetsun Dhampa was among the 600 or so Mongolians who had arrived in Dharamsala for the teachings.

While it was certainly the 10th Jetsun Dhampa’s first public appearance, it was not an announcement of his recognition, as can be discerned from developments in 2016. This can also be seen from how His Holiness refers to the young reincarnation at the beginning of the teachings on March 8. His Holiness is seen reading from a note (whether by himself or by the organizers) placed on his table, “The reincarnation of (Khalkha) Jetsun Dhampa is here.” He then looks around and asks, “Where is he? Does he understand Ukay (central Tibetan dialect)?” His Holiness continues reading from the note, “He is here to receive the empowerment of Krishnacharya lineage of Chakrasamvara. The reincarnations of the Khalkha (Jetsun Dhampa) have been adopting the Krishnacharya lineage of Chakrasamvara as their main practice and so this is an auspicious occasion without having planned for it.”

The Dalai Lama reading from the note about the 10th Jetsun Dhampa’s presence at the teachings in Dharamsala on March 8, 2023. (Screengrab)

The reincarnation is later seen participating in some of the ritual procedures as part of the empowerment.

This was certainly a newsworthy story, given that the young reincarnation is the spiritual leader of Mongolian Buddhists. But there were a few distortions.

The Jetsun Dhampa is not the successor to the Dalai Lama, as some media reports implied, nor is he “traditionally one of the Buddhist leaders who recognize the Dalai Lama’s successor,” as another one contented. While making this latter misleading assertion, one news outlet even inserted just below it an ad for its own newsletter, ironically stating, “Don’t let yourself be misled. Understand issues with help from experts.” Neither conventionally nor historically have the Jetsun Dhampas had any roles in the search for the Dalai Lamas.

Yet another misunderstanding was that the Jetsun Dhampa was “the third most important spiritual leader in Tibetan Buddhism.” While Tibetan Buddhism is traditionally clear that the Dalai Lama is the supreme leader, there is no clear system that describes the hierarchy thereafter. The Tibetan government does have a system of classifying reincarnated masters into levels of ranks, made use also to determine seating during public events where the lamas might be gathering.

If the Mongolian Buddhists are the sources for this assertion of the Jetsun Dhampa being the third most important spiritual leader, then a possible reasoning could be from the particular history of the institution of the Jetsun Dhampas, whose initial establishment was connected to the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, the two most well-known Tibetan masters. But in any case this would not be the case for the overall world of Tibetan Buddhism.

As for the China connection, which some media outlets projected in different ways, in general anything connected to the Dalai Lama somehow seems to invite some sort of China context whether there is relevance or not. This is further fueled by the tendency of Beijing to go to any extent to reduce space for the Dalai Lama, and not because they have a stake in the Jetsun Dhampa. But the Jetsun Dhampa is connected to an independent nation of Mongolia, and if the Mongolian Buddhists have acceptance of the reincarnation, that is what is relevant. At best the Communist regime in China might only be in a position to sow confusion by causing internal dissension in Mongolia. It cannot claim authority over the recognition of Jetsun Dhampa, just as we cannot think of any China connection to the reincarnation of Zhabdrung Rinpoche, a prominent lama in the Drukpa Kagyu lineage in Bhutan. Zhabdrung Rinpoche was a Tibetan lama who settled in Bhutan some centuries back.

The 10th Jetsun Dhampa is significant because he symbolizes the aspiration of the Mongolian Buddhists for their spiritual renewal, a process that began following the downfall of the Communist regime there. This is the only relevant angle to the public appearance of the reincarnation. To me, His Holiness the Dalai Lama was only helping in the realization of this Mongolian aspiration, nothing more and nothing less.

Tibetan activist and poet Tenzin Tsundue (right) speaks at ICT’s Washington, DC office on March 15, 2023.

I was reminded of that last week when ICT welcomed Tenzin Tsundue, a renowned Tibetan activist and poet, to our office in Washington, DC. I had been excited to meet Tsundue la, both because I am a (very amateur) poet myself, and because he seems to have led the kind of authentic activist lifestyle I’ve always admired. The man has been in jail 16 times, after all.

Tsundue joined us for a lunch discussion with NGO representatives and government officials. The sight of this goateed Tibetan protestor, dressed in traditional garb and a red bandana that he says he won’t remove until Tibet is free, mixing with members of the dapper DC professional class was striking enough. But Tsundue also showed a sharp contrast in thought to what echoes through the halls of power in the US capital.

In his remarks, Tsundue criticized consumerism, one of the bedrocks of American life. He noted that US consumption of cheap Chinese goods helped fuel China’s rise to superpower status, threatening American dominance around the globe.

Consumer trap

Consumerism is also harmful to the Tibetan movement. In fact, it can be an even bigger threat than repression, Tsundue warned (I’m not using quotation marks because we didn’t record his speech and I didn’t take notes, so I’m recalling as best I can from memory).

Inside Tibet, China’s abuses are so visible that the Tibetan people likely see constant reminders of it. An ordinary Tibetan under Chinese rule must live with the awareness that she is a second-class citizen, that her country is occupied and that her community is being assimilated against its will.

It brings to mind an anecdote from Barbara Demick’s excellent 2020 book, “Eat the Buddha: Life and Death in a Tibetan Town.” Demick shares the story of a young man named Tsepey, who “was into partying, not politics” growing up. However, the condescension he faced from Chinese tourists and coworkers—including a boss who told him, “You need to behave more like the others”—led to a political awakening. Tsepey eventually took to the streets during the 2008 pan-Tibetan protests, got arrested and eventually escaped into exile.

Tsepey’s life—sadly he died from flu a few years ago—shows how systemic repression can, counterintuitively, harden a person’s attachment to who they are. But in a consumer society like the US, where you can supposedly choose your identity as easily as buying a new shirt, who you are can get lost in a sea of false choices. I speak from experience.

Personal story

After the lunch at ICT, I spoke with Tsundue la for a few minutes to dive deeper into his thoughts. I shared that I was born in Chennai in the state of Tamil Nadu in India. When Tsundue tried communicating with me in Tamil, I had to admit that I couldn’t speak it. (For the record, my ancestral language is Malayalam, a relative of Tamil and the official language of the neighboring state of Kerala, where my family is originally from.)

Though I was born overseas, I moved to the US at just four months old. Growing up in suburban Pennsylvania in the 1990s and early 2000s, I mostly tried to distance myself from my ethnic background. While I likely couldn’t have embraced Indian culture even if I wanted to—the world was less digitally connected in those days—I mostly sought to ditch my identity because I felt the pain of being different.

Looking back, I of course feel ashamed now of being ashamed back then. But I was responding to the pressure I faced in that situation. Whether it was classmates mocking my dark skin, girls telling me they would never date a non-White guy or teachers accidentally calling me the name of one of the few other Indian students in my school, I was frequently reminded of my separateness at an age when many of us are desperately trying to fit in.

Freedom to destroy

But there was more to it than that. As a teen and young adult, I internalized the American belief that where you come from shouldn’t matter, and that you have the right to be whomever you want. The problem with me being Indian was not just the discrimination, but the fact that it limited my freedom.

In other words, I wanted to assimilate because it felt like the way to be free and happy. But a few decades later, I’ve found that the abundant freedoms this country provides can do as much to restrict your sense of self as to liberate you.

For one thing, if you are a person of color, assimilation will never be easy. No one will ever miss your otherness when they look at you. (Although, like Tsepey, direct discrimination might lead you to double down on your identity, something I’ve definitely experienced in life.)

Moreover, the differences between you and the majority will almost inevitably pop up, whether it’s through a contrast in values; a condescending remark that reminds you how other people truly see you; or just the inescapable feeling that you’re not like everyone else. No amount of effort to fit in can erase that, it seems to me.

International desert

Perhaps worst of all, if you try to abandon where you come from—geographically, culturally, religiously, etc.—you’ll have nothing but fragments to hold onto when you get older. Internally you’ll feel divided and unsure of who you really are. Rather than finding the freedom to be happy, you’ll only get the freedom of a balloon without a string.

I threw away being Indian as a kid so that I could be American, but today, I don’t feel fully like either, or anything. Thankfully, when I touched on these topics with Tsundue la, he seemed to grasp what I was saying immediately.

It’s tempting in a country like the US to walk away from your origins and seek to remake yourself as a free individual. But if you do that, Tsundue cautioned, you’ll end up in an international desert.

Empowering Tibetan American youth

That’s a fate I want to help Tibetan American youth avoid. Obviously, I am not saying all Tibetan American kids need to adhere to their ancestry, nor am I calling for anyone to avoid engaging with the wider world. But I know how important cultural preservation is and how difficult it can be in this society, and I at least want Tibetan American youth to have the opportunity to stay true to their roots, because I believe it will help them when they’re older (not to mention that it’s a crucial part of keeping the Tibetan struggle alive while China continues to occupy Tibet).

To be sure, Tibetan Americans seem to do a great job of that already. In my five years at ICT, I’ve been so impressed by how well the community comes together not just to advocate for their homeland but also to pass their culture to the next generation. Especially important, in my eyes, is the Tibetan Sunday schools that help teach Tibetan American kids the ways of their people. It’s a stark contrast to the Chinese boarding school system that has separated 1 million Tibetan children from their families, religion, language and culture.

I’m also pleased that ICT has so many programs that empower Tibetan Americans. In fact, we just started accepting applications for our 2023 Tibetan Youth Leadership Program. TYLP gives Tibetan American college students a unique, hands-on learning experience in policymaking and advocacy right here in Washington.

Having participated in the program the past few years, I can attest that it is a remarkable opportunity for Tibetan American youth. If you’re a Tibetan American undergrad or graduate student—or know someone who is—I encourage you to check out the application process.

Learn more and apply for TYLP.

Tibetan flag flying at the rally before the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC on March 10, 2023.

This year, on the 64th anniversary of the 1959 Uprising, I spoke at the rally before the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC. Before I continue, I should mention that this year we also had the Chair of the newly established House Select Committee on China, Representative Mike Gallagher, come to offer his support to Tibet. This is significant because the bipartisan Select Committee (whose full name is “The United States House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party”) is being looked upon as a committee that will provide a path for the future of the US-China relationship taking into consideration the current attitude of the Beijing leadership and the need to protect American interests. Tibet is a core issue in the US-China relationship as reflected in testimony before Congress by senior State Department officials and successive reports on Tibet negotiations by the State Department, which say, “the lack of resolution of these problems leads to greater tensions inside China and will be a stumbling block to fuller political and economic engagement with the United States and other nations.”

Addressing the rally at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC on March 10 with a placard on political prisoner Go Sherap Gyatso with me.

Now coming back to my remarks at the rally this year, I outlined the following three messages from the 1959 Tibetan National Uprising.

First, the people in Tibet rose up to protect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who is not only the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, but also a symbol of Tibet. They understood the strong bond between His Holiness and the Tibetan people. Sixty-four years later, the Dalai Lama continues to be a symbol of the Tibetan nation and people, and we need to do what we can to support his vision.

Secondly, in 1959, the Tibetan people in Lhasa rose up because they saw a threat to Tibet, the survival of Tibetan identity, culture, language, religion, way of life, etc., at the hands of Tenda Gyamar (“Red China, Enemy of the Faith”). Sixty-four years later, the threat to the survival of Tibetan identity posed by the misguided Chinese policies, including the Sinicization of all aspects of Tibetan life, continues. It is a credit to the determination and courage of the Tibetans in Tibet, who continue to confront the assault from the Chinese leadership and look for space to preserve their identity. We Tibetans need to see what we can do to meet these challenges and to overcome them.

Thirdly, in 1959, the Tibetan people rose up in desperation without any clear support from the international community. There were efforts made to reach out to neighboring countries as well as the United Nations. Sixty-four years later, the Tibetan issue has become an issue for concern by the international community, particularly those working in the human rights field. The international community needs to do more. Today, we can see the concern, and rightly so, on Ukraine. Since the international community does not desire conflict, it should adopt a universal policy of providing concrete support to the Tibetan issue, too, so that peace can be restored to the region.

I concluded by saying that one action that the United States can take is to pass the bipartisan and bicameral Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Conflict Act that is before the Congress.