Tag - stream

New York’s recognition of Losar would be a significant acknowledgment of Tibetan community

I was born and raised in New York City by Tibetan refugees. My parents were born in Tibet, escaped to India in 1959, and ultimately immigrated to New York in the early 1990s. It’s a point of pride for me to share that I am a Tibetan, an American, and a New Yorker.

Growing up, the Tibetan community in New York was small. In the early 2000s, our Sunday Tibetan school was made up of a couple dozen students when my brothers and I first joined, and our apartment often served as a temporary home for newly arrived Tibetan friends navigating their first steps in this city. More and more, Tibetans began to leave India in pursuit of better opportunities in the west, and many of these Tibetans settled in New York City.

For as long as I can remember, our community would rent the basement of an Armenian church near 34th St for all our cultural and religious events. However, as our Tibetan community grew, so did a demand for a community space that was accessible to the majority. We settled on a property in Queens, and thus Phuntsok Deshe was established as the Tibetan Community Center of New York and New Jersey.

Students of the Tibetan Sunday School

Students of the Tibetan Sunday School in the early 2000s.

Today, New York City is home to the largest number of Tibetans in the country. The Phuntsok Deshe Tibetan Community Center holds the Sunday Tibetan School, catering to over 500 students, and the two halls host all our religious and cultural events, including Trungkar Dhuchen (His Holiness’s birthday), prayer sessions, Tibetan school events, and Losar.

Losar, or Tibetan New Year (Lo = year, Sar = new), is a distinct Tibetan holiday that is based on a separate astrological calendar than the Lunar calendar, and it’s a holiday I look forward to every year. It’s a time where my entire family comes together to wear our newest Tibetan chubas (traditional Tibetan dress), consume Tibetan butter tea and dresil (a Tibetan dish consisting of rice, sugar, butter, raisins, and droma), and visit Tibetan temples for blessings – it’s a time for community to gather.

Early in 2024, Councilwoman Julie Won introduced the bill, “Suspension of alternate side parking regulations on Losar”, recognizing Losar on the city’s street-cleaning calendar – allowing residents to park that day without worries of receiving a ticket. Councilwoman Won’s office estimates there are 61,000 New Yorkers who celebrate Losar – “including Tibetans, Bhutanese, Highland Nepalese, Sikkimese, Mongolians, Monpas, and more.”

For someone like me, it isn’t just about having alternate side parking. I still don’t drive, and I probably won’t in the near future (“classic New Yorker,” some might say). However, this legislation isn’t about me. For many of my Tibetan and Himalayan community members – many of whom who are Uber, Lyft, and taxi drivers – this bill brings a sense of relief and recognition.

For decades, New York City has taken pride in being a melting pot of a myriad of cultures. Yet, representation in policy and legislation remains a powerful reminder of whose stories are seen and valued. Recognizing Losar in this way is not merely a practical accommodation, but a significant acknowledgment of communities like mine.

Celebrating our city’s diversity means uplifting the traditions, contributions, and voices of all its communities, and recognizing Losar through legislation on a citywide level is not just a win for Tibetans and the broader Himalayan diaspora – it is a testament to the strength and beauty of New York’s multicultural identity.

Earthquake in Tibet and Tibetan anguish

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

Tibetan singers
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.”

‘A History of Kham’ and China’s colonial rule over Tibet

Yudru Tsomu’s meticulously researched new book, Chieftains, Lamas, and Warriors: A History of Kham, 1904-1961, provides a welcome addition to narratives on Tibetan history by framing Tibet’s eastern province not as a remote periphery but instead as a crucial zone of contestation between Central Tibet and China.

In doing so, Tsomu shows a line of continuity between successive governments of China that otherwise have little in common: namely, how swiftly each one resorted to violence in their efforts to extend sovereignty over non-Chinese lands.

The more things change…

A History of Kham begins in 1904 during the waning years of the Manchu Qing empire. It then follows developments in Kham during the founding of the Republic of China, the Warlord Era, the Nationalist government, and finally through the rise of the Communist Party and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China.

Each of these regimes attempted to take control of Kham with varying degrees of effort and success. Over the span of a few decades the Khampas were subjected to incursions by murderous Manchu bannermen, despotic Sichuanese warlords, and the People’s Liberation Army, which relied on brutal violence to secure an occupation that continues to this day.

Despite the wildly differing ideologies of these governments, each one reached for the same set of tools upon encountering Tibetan resistance to their rule; the Qing general Zhao Erfeng (1845-1911) earned the title “Zhao the Butcher” for slaughtering Tibetan villagers and burned down monasteries in 1905, the warlords who succeeded the Qing dynasty used their armies to punish Tibetans for resisting, and in 1956 Mao’s China employed methods of destruction Zhao Erfeng could have scarcely imagined when they used Tupelov Tu-4 bombers to assault Lithang Monastery.

Illustration of the aerial bombardment of Chatreng Monastery

Illustration of the aerial bombardment of Chatreng Monastery, another major monastery in Kham.

Zhang Yintang, a Chinese official who served in the Qing and Republican eras, expressed this philosophy succinctly. “China should rule Tibet as Britain ruled India,” he said as he unveiled a campaign of forced assimilation which serves as a prequel to the CCP’s current effort.

… the more they stay the same

Consider some of the incidents detailed in A History of Kham.

  • In 1904, the Qing Empire’s Sichuan Governor-General Xiliang ordered the provincial commander-in-chief to embark on a punitive expedition in Kham after the monks of Gartar Monastery and local Tibetans attempted to disrupt a Chinese mining operation that had been established in Tibet.
  • In 1912, Tibetans in Drakyab revolted against Chinese rule, and a general serving Yuan Shikai’s Beiyang government brutally suppressed the revolt and burned down Yemdo Monastery.
  • In 1920, Tibetans in Bathang rose up to expel Chinese commander Yang Dexi and his garrison. Their attempt to restore Tibetan leadership in Bathang failed, and Yang executed the leaders of the uprising.
  • In 1932, Chinese warlord Liu Wenhui dispatched a regiment for a punitive expedition against Gara Lama in the town of Tawu, which had thrown off Liu’s control.
  • In 1936, Red Army units on the Long March entered Kham. Tsomu notes that despite disciplinary measures, Communist troops still went on rampages.
  • In 1937, Guomindang commander Zeng Yanshu violently suppressed a Tibetan rebellion in Gangkar Ling.
  • In 1956, Tibetan revolts against Chinese rule occurred in 18 of the 21 counties of Kardze prefecture. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army used overwhelming force to quell the uprisings, including the aforementioned aerial bombardment of Lithang Monastery.

Over this period empires, warlords, republics, and people’s republics came and went, but Chinese forces securing control of parts of Kham through violence remained a constant.

The targeting of Tibetan monasteries continues to the present. The CCP justifies their ongoing efforts to restrict, control, and eliminate Tibetan Buddhism according to their own principles, but these assaults on monasteries are consistent with prior regimes which held completely opposite principles. Only the justifications change: “disobeying the emperor” for the Qing, “securing the border” for Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists, and “smashing the reactionary upper class” for the Communists.

In reality they have always been, first and foremost, efforts to break down centers of Tibetan nationalist power in order to subjugate Tibetans to Chinese power instead. Modern Chinese propaganda on the subject is shaped by Beijing’s persistent efforts to frame Tibetan resistance as a class issue, but their true motivations clearly line up with those of previous Chinese governments trying to impose their rule on an unwilling Tibetan population.

Dargye Monastery provides an instructive example of this continuity in action. A large institution located in Kham with close ties to the Tibetan government in Lhasa, it was assaulted by Chinese forces in a 1930 punitive campaign and then ransacked again and burned down in 1932. Under Communist rule – theoretically the antithesis to the Guomindang – the monks would be forced to leave the monastery in 1958, and it would be completely demolished during the Cultural Revolution before later being rebuilt.

Dargye Monastery

Dargye Monastery today (Photo: Andelicek.andy)

Kham since 1961

Tsomu’s book ends in 1961, but the story doesn’t stop there.

Dargye Monastery, for example, remains a center of both Tibetan resistance and Chinese repression to this day. In 2008 a Dargye monk named Kunsang Tsering staged a peaceful protest and was shot by members of the People’s Armed Police, while in 2011 two Dargye monks were arrested for shouting slogans in Lhasa’s Barkhor district, including “We want freedom and human rights in Tibet.” Five years later, Chinese authorities cancelled a religious gathering and horse race festival organized by Dargye Monastery after monks and local residents refused an order to fly the Chinese flag at the two events, at the monastery, and from residents’ homes.

Efforts for forcibly converting Tibetans into Chinese culture have continued as well. As part of their linguistic repression of Tibetan, in recent years Chinese authorities have been busy forcibly closing Tibetan schools and replacing them with a system of colonial boarding schools.

Some of the figures mentioned in A History of Kham have received something of a recent reappraisal. The Chinese Communist Party would never endorse the Qing Empire’s methods of rule over China, but how about in Tibet? Tibetan writer Woeser noted that Zhao the Butcher, a certifiable homicidal maniac, has been given the seal of approval by from current Chinese leaders and nationalist voices:

Many Chinese mention that Zhao Erfeng killed Han Chinese people, which they consider the “dark spot in his life,” but his evil behavior in Tibet is endlessly being praised; one finds headlines such as “the misunderstood national hero of the last century,” “the historical contributions of the great Qing minister Zhao Erfeng who led an army into Tibet to put an end to the rebellions,” “cherish the memory of the national hero Zhao Erfeng,” or “recapturing a Tibetan hero.” This very clearly shows that killing Han Chinese is cruel and mean, whereas killing Tibetans is an act of patriotism.

Ruling Tibet like the British ruled India, indeed.

My take on the Joint Statement on Tibet at the UN in New York

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.”

How can we best celebrate the anniversary of H.H. the Dalai Lama’s Congressional Gold Medal?

In August this year, I had the intensely emotional experience of attending the event in New York organized by the Tibetan and Himalayan communities to make a Tenshug (long-live prayer) offering to His Holiness the Dalai Lama who was on a visit to the United States.

It was emotional for few reasons. First, the most recent visit of His Holiness to this part of the world took place way back in 2016, before the dreaded Covid19 pandemic.

Secondly, indications until this visit were that His Holiness would be limiting his international travel thus reducing the opportunity for devotees in this region to be in his direct presence and attend his teachings here.

Thirdly, and with this sort of reduced opportunity, all devotees and well-wishers were both overjoyed and concerned when learning that His Holiness was making an unprecedented visit to the United States for a knee surgery. To our collective relief, we were informed that His Holiness not only had a successful treatment, but that he would accept the devotees’ supplication for an opportunity to be in his presence.

Bhuchung K. Tsering

The event took place in a packed ice hockey stadium in the outskirts of New York City. During the whole time that His Holiness the Dalai Lama was at the venue, there was palpable hysteria, although expressed differently than one would see at a music or a sports event. The way the over 17,000 people in the stadium reacted as soon as the giant monitor screen showed His Holiness coming toward the stage was something best left to be experienced.

The reason why I am referring to this event is because we are now celebrating the 17th anniversary of another historic event, the Congressional Gold Medal to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, which took place in Washington, DC on October 17, 2007. The legislation that mandated this award, S.2784 – Fourteenth Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act, in fact outline the reasons for this sort of public reverence to His Holiness. It acknowledged that His Holiness “is the unrivaled spiritual and cultural leader of the Tibetan people,” and one might extend this to other communities who consider themselves as his devotees.

Since 17 years have passed, let us recall the reasons the Congress outlined as the basis for its decision to bestow the award to His Holiness. It mentioned six points, saying the Dalai Lama:

  1. is recognized in the United States and throughout the world as a leading figure of moral and religious authority;
  2. is the unrivaled spiritual and cultural leader of the Tibetan people, and has used his leadership to promote democracy, freedom, and peace for the Tibetan people through a negotiated settlement of the Tibet issue, based on autonomy within the People’s Republic of China;
  3. has led the effort to preserve the rich cultural, religious, and linguistic heritage of the Tibetan people and to promote the safeguarding of other endangered cultures throughout the world;
  4. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 for his efforts to promote peace and non-violence throughout the globe, and to find democratic reconciliation for the Tibetan people through his “Middle Way” approach;
  5. has significantly advanced the goal of greater understanding, tolerance, harmony, and respect among the different religious faiths of the world through interfaith dialogue and outreach to other religious leaders; and
  6. has used his moral authority to promote the concept of universal responsibility as a guiding tenet for how human beings should treat one another and the planet we share.

So, as we celebrate the anniversary of the Congressional Gold Medal to His Holiness it is heartening to see the continued strong reverence people have for His Holiness. As the New York event (as well as the one in Zurich and subsequent public events in Dharamsala) showed, His Holiness is still there to provide us with pertinent advice. But it would even be more beneficial for us devotees and well-wishers to see how we can strengthen our work to fulfil His Holiness’ vision. For example, while re-reading His Holiness’ essay on A Human Approach to World Peace (written in the 1980s) recently for a work-related task, given the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine and the expanding violence in the Middle East, the universality of his message is something that we need to draw attention to.

For Tibetans, it is imperative that we use this occasion to take stock of the changing situation, whether His Holiness’ age, Chinese strategy on Tibet and His Holiness, Tibetan exile politics. We Tibetans need to get our priorities right, just as Gungthang Rinpoche advised us way back in the 18th century: “Do not cast aside the root, and (merely) grasp the branches” “(རྩ་བ་བོར་ནས་ཡལ་ག་མ་འཛིན་ཨང༌། གུང་ཐང་བསྟན་པའི་སྒྲོན་མེ།). I believe the time has come for Tibetans and the Tibet movement as a whole to consolidate our achievements and institutionalize them in the different countries where we reside.

New Cultural Revolution in Tibet: Xi’s “cultural ideology” aims to erase Tibet’s identity

A "knowledge contest"

A “knowledge contest” for Tibetan monks and nuns, in which they were asked to demonstrate their knowledge of the party’s ideology. The compulsory event was organized last summer by the United Front Department of the Communist Party of China. (Source: WeChat/xztzb.com)

A look at Tibet reveals that a new cultural revolution is taking place there. Beijing’s campaign affects all areas of Tibetan life and penetrates deep into even the most private areas of people. The “Four Old Evils” that the Red Guards fought against at the time are now defined much more comprehensively, however, and those in power are no longer just targeting the traditional social elites. What the Chinese Communist Party’s new cultural revolution in Tibet wants to destroy is nothing less than the independent cultural, religious and national identity of the Tibetans. This is to be completely eradicated, and Tibetans are to be turned into Chinese.

The new cultural revolution in Tibet is taking place on many levels simultaneously. It uses political, cultural and economic measures in conjunction with comprehensive surveillance and control of all areas of life. The Chinese rulers are relying on systematic and long-term “Sinicization,” a term that refers to the forced assimilation of Tibetans. This goal is served, for example, by the forced placement of a large number of Tibetan children and young people in state boarding schools. In these schools, systematic efforts are made to alienate the young people from their mother tongue and their cultural and religious traditions.

By forcibly settling Tibetan nomads, the Chinese rulers are trying to eradicate a way of life that gives Tibetans their identity and, at the same time, are deliberately creating a situation of economic dependence. The forced integration of Tibetans into state work programs is also intended to serve this purpose.

New Cultural Revolution wants to adapt Buddhism “to socialist society”

Another focus of Beijing’s new cultural revolution in Tibet concerns Tibetan Buddhism. The Chinese rulers want Buddhism to be completely at the service of the Communist Party’s rule and to “adapt to socialist society.”

In addition, Communist Party officials stress at every opportunity the obligation of Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns to study General Secretary Xi Jinping’s statements on religious work. “Patriotic education” is once again widespread in Tibet’s monasteries, and monks are even forced to publicly defame the Dalai Lama. In some areas, even the prayer flags that are so inseparably associated with Tibet are banned.

A Communist Party leader

A Communist Party leader is venerated like a Buddhist dignitary: Xi Jinping visits Tsongkha Gon monastery. (Source: xztzb.gov.cn)

The new cultural revolution in Tibet is clearly a top priority. This became clear recently when several top officials visited Tibet almost simultaneously, including Xi Jinping and Wang Huning, the number 1 and number 4 of the Communist Party’s inner circle of leadership, and Shi Taifeng, the head of the United Work Front. The message spread by Beijing’s propaganda media was always that the “Sinicization” of Tibet must be consistently pushed forward.

Destruction of Buddhist centers, demolition of Buddha statues

As in the days of the first Cultural Revolution, Beijing is still using brute force against Buddhist institutions in Tibet today, for example when the accommodations of thousands of monks and nuns in the Larung Gar and Yachen Gar Buddhist study centers are demolished. Or when, as happened in December 2021, the local Chinese rulers have a 30-meter-high Buddha statue and 45 large Buddhist prayer wheels destroyed. At the core, however, the CCP leadership is trying to destroy Buddhism from within; the outer shell should appear intact on the surface, while the actual substance has long since disappeared.

The communist rulers, who are committed to atheism according to their statutes, claim to decide on the successor to the Dalai Lama and all other reincarnations of Tibetan Buddhism. Beijing has also made the Buddhist Association of China (BAC) another building block in its strategy for the forced assimilation and transformation of Tibetan Buddhism. This supposedly non-political organization is intended to help appoint Tibetan Buddhist dignitaries in the interests of the Communist Party.

A cultural revolution took place in Tibet before 1966

The Cultural Revolution that took place in Tibet between 1966 and 1976 differed considerably from the Cultural Revolution in China from the outset. Although the campaign in Tibet, which was primarily carried out by the Red Guards, was also directed against the so-called “Four Old Evils”, which meant “old ways of thinking”, “old cultures”, “old habits” and “old customs”, to Tibetans they must have seemed like an intensified version of the brutal oppression that the Chinese communists had begun since the beginning of the violent conquest and occupation of the country more than a decade earlier. In fact, a Cultural Revolution had already taken place in Tibet before 1966.

After the brutal suppression of the Tibetan popular uprisings in the 1950s by communist forces, the Chinese rulers in Tibet established an absolute tyranny. Not only did countless people fall victim to this, it was also accompanied by the systematic destruction of monasteries, temples and cultural monuments. The majority of the population was forced into newly established people’s communes, where they were to be re-formed into class-conscious proletarians, while the members of the former upper class were to “reform” themselves through forced labor (“reform through work”).

Tsadi Tseten Dorje

Tsadi Tseten Dorje, the former mayor of Lhasa, is denounced during a “Thamzing” struggle session in Lhasa. The placard around his neck lists Dorje’s alleged crimes: “Counter-revolutionary, deceitful ringleader and promoter of unrest, butcher, murderer and slaughterer of the working masses.” (Photo: Tsering Dorje)

The struggle and criticism sessions known in Tibet as “Thamzing” had a particularly traumatic effect. In these sessions, selected victims were publicly humiliated and tortured until they confessed their alleged “guilt.” In 1976, the Tibetan government in exile published a collection of testimonies from Tibetan refugees from 1958 to 1975 under the title “Tibet Under Chinese Communist Rule.” This collection provides a good overview of the Chinese reign of terror in Tibet during this period. In accordance with their Marxist ideology, the Beijing rulers assumed that these measures would automatically dissolve the national, cultural and religious identity of the Tibetans within the framework of the People’s Republic of China. In fact, things turned out differently. Despite everything, the Tibetans have retained their identity and to this day the vast majority do not want to be made into Chinese.

Beijing’s new cultural revolution also promotes personality cult

The personality cult that characterized the Cultural Revolution has also been resurrected, but at its center is no longer the “Great Helmsman” Mao Zedong, but the “navigator” Xi Jinping. And the “little red book” with Mao sayings that one should be able to recite by heart has been replaced by the “little red app”. Communist party cells have since organized competitions, wrote Kai Strittmatter in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”: “People collect points in the apps: reading Xi speeches, watching Xi speeches gives points, answering Xi quiz questions even more. Usage time and score are forwarded directly to the examiners.”

In this respect, it is hardly surprising that the new magic word of Beijing’s new cultural revolution is “Xi Jinping’s cultural ideology”. Explanations of the concept, which is also translated as “Xi Jinping’s cultural thought,” can be found on numerous websites of the Chinese Communist Party and the state agencies dominated by the Communist Party. The Chinese rulers in Tibet are openly targeting the cultural sector with this. The Chinese propaganda media recently reported on a large-scale seminar on “Xi Jinping’s cultural ideology” in the eastern Tibetan prefecture of Kardze. It is to be expected that this latest component of China’s new cultural revolution in Tibet will be expanded to all parts of the country in the future. It remains to be hoped that the Tibetans will maintain their resilience in the face of the new cultural revolution.

* The photo at the top shows a “knowledge contest” for Tibetan monks and nuns, in which they were asked to demonstrate their knowledge of the party’s ideology. The compulsory event was organized last summer by the United Front Department of the Communist Party of China. (Source: WeChat/xztzb.com)

Beijing advances a perplexing new argument in Dalai Lama succession fight

With the Dalai Lama’s 90th birthday less than a year away, China is struggling to control the narrative regarding his succession.

The facts are quite clear: Tibetan Buddhists have their own centuries-old methods for identifying reincarnate lamas, and international standards on human rights state that freedom of religious belief includes the right to “train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate leaders.”

The current Dalai Lama laid out his reasoning on this topic back in 2011, issuing a statement that reviewed the history of reincarnate lama lineages, raised several possibilities for how his successor could be found, and closed with a plan for how this question would be resolved:

When I am about ninety I will consult the high Lamas of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Tibetan public, and other concerned people who follow Tibetan Buddhism, and re-evaluate whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not. On that basis we will take a decision. If it is decided that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama should continue and there is a need for the Fifteenth Dalai Lama to be recognized, responsibility for doing so will primarily rest on the concerned officers of the Dalai Lama’s Gaden Phodrang Trust… I shall leave clear written instructions about this. Bear in mind that, apart from the reincarnation recognized through such legitimate methods, no recognition or acceptance should be given to a candidate chosen for political ends by anyone, including those in the People’s Republic of China.

This reasoning has been embraced by many around the world; in the United States, the Tibetan Policy and Support Act tasked the State Department with establishing international diplomatic coalitions to “oppose any effort by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to identify or install Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders in a manner inconsistent with the established religious practice and system of Tibetan Buddhism” and “ensure that the identification and installation of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders, including a future 15th Dalai Lama, is determined solely within the Tibetan Buddhist faith community, in accordance with the universally recognized right to religious freedom.”

China’s abduction of the Panchen Lama at the age of six and his two decades of enforced disappearance since then undoubtedly set the stage for this dispute. By kidnapping a child, Beijing clearly showed the world what religious freedom with Chinese characteristics entails.

A new spin on an old classic

If Tibetans, the United States, and others favor respecting Tibetan Buddhist tradition and compliance with human rights standards, how does Beijing justify its claim to authority over the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation? China, after all, maintains a rhetorical opposition to imperialism, always portraying itself as a victim of foreign domination and never a perpetrator; problems in Tibet are always caused by “outside foreign forces,” and are never a consequence of China’s brutal occupation of the Tibetan nation.

Typically, Beijing justifies this interference with misleading interpretations of history that often center on an artifact known as the Golden Urn. Earlier this year, for example, a Chinese state media broadcast referred to the use of the Golden Urn as “the most pivotal step” in recognizing a reincarnate lama, a claim that does not stand up to scrutiny.

I was interested to see that Lhajam Gyal (Ch: Laxianjia), a deputy director of the Institute of Religion at the China Tibetology Research Center (CTRC), recently offered an alternate justification. At an All-China Journalists Association meeting he spoke on this issue, saying:

“Although the Dalai Lama is currently outside China, his reincarnation is still part of the [Tibetan Buddhist] Gelug tradition and under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government, as most temples are located within China.”

The CTRC is a government-founded institute that frequently serves as a mouthpiece to defend Chinese rule in Tibet, and so it’s interesting to see a senior staffer there provide a different reason for Beijing’s interference in Tibetan Buddhism. The idea that the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation is under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government because of the location of Tibetan Buddhist temples (hereafter Lhajam’s Rule) strikes me as quite flimsy, however, and it immediately fills me with more questions.

Would Lhajam Gyal, the CTRC, and the CCP agree that according to Lhajam’s Rule jurisdiction over reincarnation passed out of Beijing’s hands during the Cultural Revolution, when almost all Tibetan Buddhist sites in the PRC were shuttered? Tibetan Buddhist communities are indigenous to Nepal, India, Bhutan, Mongolia, and parts of Russia; perhaps the CTRC could tally up their temples and see which nation gained jurisdiction over reincarnation during this period. It would also be helpful if they studied the reopening of Tibetan Buddhist temples in the PRC following Mao’s death in order to establish when jurisdiction over reincarnation returned to Beijing.

I also wonder if Lhajam’s Rule was in effect during the time of Tibet’s undisputed independence following the collapse of the Qing dynasty. Four of the six major Gelug monasteries lay within the territory of the Ganden Phodrang state, far from the control of the Republic of China. The standard CCP line is that China was still in charge of the reincarnation of the 14th Dalai Lama, which took place during this time, but Lhajam’s Rule would appear to disagree.

Relying on the location of temples also seems to leave Lhajam’s Rule with easily-exploitable loopholes. Many Tibetans now live far from the Land of Snows; could they go on a temple-building spree and give jurisdiction over reincarnation to another country? India seems like a natural choice, with a number of historic Tibetan monasteries in places like Ladakh and new Tibetan refugee colonies established all over the country. Would the CTRC be willing to certify that the Indian government has the exclusive power to confirm reincarnations after constructing the requisite number of temples?

Finally, I must ask why Lhajam’s Rule is applied solely to Tibetan Buddhism and not to other faiths. Beijing has repeatedly claimed the authority to select Catholic bishops for churches in China over the Pope’s objections, but Italy has a far greater number of Catholic churches; shouldn’t Beijing agree that the Italians have a natural authority on this matter and condemn their own interference?

A thankless task

Lhajam’s Rule is silly, but it isn’t much sillier than the spectacle of a self-professed atheist state claiming the power to recognize reincarnations. In the end, China’s arguments about the Golden Urn and the location of temples are both attempts to put a rhetorical fig leaf over the naked reality: China has occupied Tibet, and has decided that it therefore owns Tibetan Buddhism, a faith that was historically practiced in a half dozen countries and has now spread around the world.

Lhajam Gyal apparently has a reputation for being a talented writer, but his job at CTRC is coming up with justifications for China’s repression of Tibetan Buddhism even if they’re half-baked. It’s enough to make you feel a degree of second-hand embarrassment for him – if you can overcome the distastefulness of someone offering these arguments in support of the policies of a government that kidnapped one of his fellow Tibetans at the age of six.

All things considered, I do have a certain amount of appreciation for Lhajam’s Rule. Beijing’s false claims about the Golden Urn have been repeated ad nauseum, and it’s nice to have someone make the effort to come up with something new – particularly when it’s such a peculiar argument. If the CTRC isn’t capable of telling the truth about Tibetan Buddhism then I hope they will keep inventing new claims; perhaps the next one will be a winner.

The human and environmental impacts of hydroelectric projects in Tibet presented at the water village in France

The water-village in Melle, France.

From July 16 to 21, the small village of Melle in the Deux-Sèvres region of France hosted a water village aimed at challenging mega-basin projects and the current agricultural model.

Protests against “mega-basins”

‘Mega-basins’ are huge open-air water reservoirs, over 70% of which are financed by public funds, and most of which pump water from underground aquifers.

A mega-basin in France.

According to the NGO Les Soulèvements de la Terre, a mega-basin refers to structures of over 50,000 cubic meters and/or more than one hectare in size. Mega-basins are different from hill reservoirs, which are filled by runoff and are more modest in size. These are ponds or puddles, used by less water-hungry farmers. But hill reservoirs can also be contested, particularly in the Alps, where they are used to produce artificial snow.

There is no official record of the exact number of mega-basins in France. So there’s a lot of mystery surrounding their number!

According to the independent investigative media Reporterre, the most reliable figure concerns the former Poitou-Charentes region, comprising the departments of Deux-Sèvres, (where the water village was installed) Charente-Maritime, Charente and Vienne. Nearly eighty-seven mega-basins are planned, all of which are the subject of legal challenges. Thirty-four have been cancelled thanks to the mobilization of associations.

According to Reporter’s estimates, based on information from Bassines non merci, nearly 300 mega-basins are planned throughout France. The real figure could be higher. An interactive map shows their location and characteristics.

This water issued from these mega-basins then benefits just 5% of French farms, and is used to boost the productivity of water-hungry crops (such as maize) that are ill-suited to climate change.

More than 120 environmental, farmers’, trade union and collective organizations mobilized to call for a nationwide halt to the construction and operation of the basins, and for an immediate moratorium.

Protests against mega-basins on 19 July and 20 July.

Protests against mega-basins on 19 July and 20 July.

This mobilization, which was followed by two major demonstrations on July 19 and 20, is the third of its kind, once again firmly supervised and repressed by the security forces. The previous two were held in 2022 and 2023 in the same region. The March 2023 demonstration against the Sainte Soline mega-farming project remains infamous for the scale and virulence of the police repression that befell the demonstrators (see the Reporterre report, Sainte-Soline, Autopsie d’un Carnage).

An international dimension of the water village

The village was attended by several thousand people, including some forty guests from abroad (India, Brazil, Colombia, New Caledonia…). Swedish activist Greta Thunberg was also present, albeit discreetly. The village thus had an international dimension, which was reflected in the many debates, meetings and screenings organized throughout the event.

Some of the guests from foreign countries reading a statement of support.

ICT was invited to take part in two events at the Water Village. Firstly, I was able to speak about the mining situation in Tibet as part of the discussion on “Investigating water, extraction and the energy transition”. It brought together a fine line-up of speakers from the academic world and NGOs such as:

  • Célia IZOARD: journalist and philosopher, author of La Ruée minière au XXIe siècle : enquête sur les métaux à l’ère de la transition (The mining rush in the XXe century: an investigation into metals in the age of transition),
  • Claire DEBUCQUOIS; Fédération nationale de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS research fellow),
  • Juan Pablo GUTIERREZ: ONIC delegate and member of the Yukpa people affected by an open-cast coal mining mega-project, Colombia,
  • and numerous collectives in struggle: No Cav against marble quarries in Tuscany, Italy, Ende Gelände against kohl mining activities in Germany, the collective in struggle against the lithium mine in Allier in France, Stop Micro 38 in France…

All these testimonies converge to demonstrate that the current capitalist system, driven by greed for natural resources, is the main driving force behind the proliferation of these destructive mining and industrial projects across the planet. In all the examples cited, the quest for profit, particularly for the large multinationals, take precedence over human rights.

Large dams: how to put an end to these weapons of domination?

ICT also spoke on a panel entitled “Large dams: how to put an end to these weapons of domination”. In addition to ICT, the panel included three speakers: a representative of the association SOS Loire vivante and Paula Davoglio Goes of the Movement of People Affected by Dams in Brazil. The presentations demonstrated that the problems associated with dams are very similar from one country to the next. These projects are generally imposed from the top down without any involvement or consultation with local populations, and often inflict serious impact on the life and culture of the populations concerned, as well as on the environment.

ICT’s participation in the panel on dams.

In Brazil, for example, which has some of the largest dams in the world (second only to the Three Gorges), some dams have burst, such as the Brumadinho dam in January 2019, resulting in the death and disappearance of 270 people. The Vale mining group had not informed the authorities of any anomaly suggesting that the disaster could have been avoided.

In 2015, for the COP21 in Paris, ICT published a report on water “Tibet’s water and global Climate Change” which addressed the issue of dams. Today, ICT’s research continues to study hydropower projects in Tibet, either completed or underway (there are said to be around 200). Evidence shows that one of Beijing’s objectives is to turn Tibet into an energy exporter, initially supplying central and eastern China as part of the West-to-East Energy Transmission Project, and then neighboring countries in Southeast Asia.

Risks of hydroelectric projects

As highlighted by an ICT news report in April this year, dams entail serious inherent risks for the local environment and its inhabitants. Three risks stand out:

  1. Hydroelectric dams are sensitive to and increase the risk of earthquakes, landslides and flash floods, particularly in seismically active regions such as the Himalayas.
  2. Dams are not environmentally friendly. They increase the human footprint in fragile and biodiversity-rich ecosystems, and interrupt essential aquatic life, soil and nutrient flows downstream. As well, the reservoirs created by land flooding also produce methane pollution, a potent greenhouse gas.
  3. Dams also lead to the eviction of inhabitants from their traditional homes. Residents are often forced to leave, or forced to do so without consultation, and those displaced receive inadequate compensation or have no access to a fair procedure to seek redress for the damage they have suffered.

Dams in Tibet can certainly be seen as tools of domination both over the local population and the environment, but also more broadly over relations with neighboring countries. For example, along the Yarlung Tsangpo, which becomes the Brahmaputra, dams and other large infrastructure projects are used to lay claim to disputed territories on the border with India. They literally consolidate their territorial claims. India is wary of this situation and is also stepping up infrastructure development in the north of the country.

A threat to cultural heritage

To illustrate the impact of dams on cultural heritage, the water village screened the excellent documentary “La bataille du Côa, une leçon portugaise” (The Battle of the Côa, a Portuguese lesson) in the presence of director Jean-Luc Bouvret, about the resistance against a dam project in Sao that threatened to cover Paleolithic engravings over 20,000 years old. This mobilization, led by the schoolchildren, eventually paid off, and the state had to back down and halt construction of the dam.

The film echoes to a certain extend the Kamtok dam on the Drichu River, a tributary of the Yangtze, in Sichuan province east of Tibet, which threatens to bury several villages as well as several monasteries including the historic monasteries of Wonto and Yena, which survived the Cultural Revolution and house important mural paintings dating for some of them from the 14th century.

Wontö Rabten Lhunpo Tse Monastery

14th century murals in Wontö Monastery offering a glimpse into the rich artistic traditions of Tibet.

Several hundred residents demonstrated in Dege County to implore the Chinese authorities to reconsider their decision. On February 22, armed police arrested numerous Tibetan monks from Wonto and Yena monasteries as well as local residents, many of whom were beaten and injured. Video footage shows Chinese officials in black uniforms forcibly restraining the monks, who can be heard shouting to stop the dam’s construction. The Chinese authorities’ response was very heavy-handed, with numerous arrests. Several local representatives remain imprisoned to this day, facing heavy prison sentences for their peaceful mobilization (see ICT report).

Alternatives to hydroelectric dams

Although there is a global consensus on the need to accelerate investment in renewable energy to reduce the effects of climate change, hydroelectric dams carry inherent, serious and disproportionate risks for the local environment and residents and in many cases contribute to climate change. It is important to assess each hydroelectric dam project on a case-by-case basis, whether in France on the Loire, in the USA, in Brazil or in Tibet, and to remain cautious about the range of risks and costs involved. There are other paths to renewable energy development, and all sustainable paths are based on the rule of law, transparency, inclusion and accountability.

As with the mega-basins in France, we call for a moratorium on all dams under construction or planned in Tibet.

A note of hope: the Indian tribes of the Klamath Basin

To end on a hopeful note, I’d like to highlight the victorious battle won by the indigenous Indian tribes of the Klamath Basin, a river in the western United States in California, against four hydroelectric dams that threatened their survival and that of the salmon are to be dismantled. They won their case and the state was forced to dismantle these infrastructures, an unprecedented undertaking to restore a river. This is the epilogue to a war that has been going on for over twenty years between ranchers, landowners, tourism professionals and the “salmon people”, the indigenous tribes whose fate has steadily declined along with that of the river. And, for once, the Indians have won.

My take on the Congressional delegation and US support for Tibet

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.” “

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.”

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.”

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).

The Dalai Lama 89th birthday: A Celebration of Teaching

From July 1st through the 6th, I had the privilege of participating in the second International Tibet Youth Forum and attending His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s 89th birthday in Dharamshala.

I witnessed firsthand dignitaries, monastics, and citizens gather to recognize the Dalai Lama’s decades of dedication to compassion, preservation of the Tibetan people’s ancient civilization, and democratic freedom.

As we know, the celebration echoed around the world, befitting the Dalai Lama’s global leadership and universal message of kindness.

Despite his absence as he is in the United States, recovering from knee surgery, the crowd joined hands in spirited acknowledgment of the Dalai Lama’s service, not just to the Tibetan people’s struggle to peaceably end the People’s Republic of China’s occupation, but also to the principles of the oneness of humanity, regardless of nationality, origin, or belief.

Woven together with His Holiness’ contributions as an emissary of justice, much emphasis was placed on the necessity to find a concrete path toward a stable, mutually beneficial agreement between Tibetan leadership and Chinese authorities.

Particularly noteworthy to me was the Tibetan community’s rallying around the recently passed Resolve Tibet Act by the U.S Congress, which expresses the Tibetan people’s aspiration of self-determination. The law also takes direct aim at the PRC’s slanderous attacks on His Holiness and constant disinformation campaigns that attempt to substitute lies for historical fact in service to its agenda of domination.

Proud to have contributed my part on behalf of the International Campaign for Tibet in partnership with the Office of Tibet and many other Tibet supporters from around the world to advance the bill, it was incredibly moving to experience the significance the law is to the Tibetan people—pragmatically and as a beacon of hope to those within Tibet trapped by the fear of constant surveillance, arrest, and torture.

Befittingly, however, His Holiness’ birthday was filled with energetic joy. In defiance of Beijing’s agenda to erase Tibet’s ancient civilization, performers ranging from older representatives to the very young gifted the crowd with traditional, dance and music.

Dancers swirled in complex, synchronized movement, voices raised in Tibet’s distinctively pitched signing, and musicians artfully manipulated traditional percussion and string instruments

As mentioned above, I also had the privilege of participating in the youth forum that preceded the birthday celebration. Hosted by the Central Tibetan Administration, the forum brought together young Tibetans from 13 countries for discussion and advocacy trainings.

Speakers included, the Venerable Geshe Lhadkor, Director of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dr. Tenzin Dorjee, Strategist and Senior Researcher, Tibet Action Institute, Bhutilla Karpoche, Member of Provincial Parliament, Canada, Namgyal Gangshontsang, Mayor of Oetwil am See, Switzerland, and many others.

Once again, we were gifted by several performances conveying the distinctive nature of Tibetan artistry.

The gorgeously embroidered costume and elaborate masks were especially indicative of the vibrancy and depth of Tibet’s customs These displays provided another boost of dedication to transferring the beauty from this to generations to come.

The panels themselves offered introduction to a range of core advocacy methods, including leadership training, non-violent activism, interacting with elected officials, campaign design, movement building, and more.

It was easy to tell from the young students’ active engagement, repeated show of dedication to building their own advocacy skills, and interest in organizing their communities, the fire that continues to ignite the younger generation’s passion for change.

When asked about his participation as a speaker, Namgyal Gangshontsang, whom I met at the forum, replied “It was an honor to be part of the International Tibet Youth Forum 2024 with so many motivated conference participants.” adding “the speeches, discussions… [and] training sessions were fabulous and extremely motivating at the same time…in my view, it was a complete success.”

I could not agree more. It was incredibly satisfying to help illustrate strategies to interact with policy makers and to conduct advocacy training to provide tools to advance the Tibetan cause in the participants respective political systems.

I firmly believe strengthening the next generation’s efforts to effect change is crucial. There can be no better advocates than younger Tibetans to fulfill the end of China’s oppression. Afterall, the future belongs to them.