This resentment spilled over in March, when Buddhist monks initiated peaceful anti-Chinese protests in capital Lhasa. The demonstrations began March 14, the anniversary of a failed 1959 uprising against Beijing’s rule that sent the Dalai Lama into exile. The protests soon turned violent, with demonstrators burning vehicles and shops. The subsequent crackdown left 18 civilians and one police officer dead, according to Beijing. Tibet’s self-proclaimed government-in-exile in Dharamsala put the death toll at 140.

Last week, a total of 581 exiled Tibetan leaders from around the world gathered in Dharamsala for a six-day brainstorming to find a way to move their struggle forward. What emerged was a cacophony of disparate voices, all calling for some form of freedom for Tibet, but uncertain what shape it should take.

No one is expecting the 130,000 Tibetans in exile, or the 6 million in China (2.5 million in Tibet and 3.5 million in other provinces), to suddenly shift course away from the official position: the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way of negotiating for genuine autonomy while remaining part of China. Advocating independence can be taken as an implicit criticism of the Dalai Lama and thus considered taboo among many Tibetans, but last week’s talks brought those views into the mainstream. Leaders of the main pro-independence activist groups were invited and their opinions were incorporated into its final report.

Those supporting independence were still a small minority — about 20%. The meeting itself was weighted toward the old guard, because most of the invitees were formally elected abroad, not grass-roots leaders from homeland. There was a huge discrepancy in the way the meeting was called.

The best hope of the independence activists was to try to influence the strategies of negotiation rather than call for a wholesale change in policy. Even among those who support independence, there is some skepticism about whether pushing for it now would be wise. The nations that have fought for their independence have shed a lot of blood; Tibetans don’t want that.

The meeting became a dress rehearsal in democracy as the Tibetans tried to formulate a plan without the guidance of “His Holiness” the Dalai Lama, a man they view as closer to a god than a mere leader. He didn’t participate in the discussions.

As expected, the most radical option was a call for independence, a move that would infuriate Beijing and alienate much of the international community, which is loath to get on China’s bad side. The Tibetan exiles, of course, have long been on China’s bad side.

On Friday, China launched a new attack, making clear it would not yield in its hard-line policy. The Dalai Lama’s “so-called ‘middle way’ is a naked expression of Tibet independence aimed at nakedly spreading the despicable plot of opposing the tide of history,” said an editorial in Beijing’s Tibet Daily. Most of those calling for independence have not articulated how that would be achieved, but say further discussions could provide an outline. Others argue that launching a quixotic bid to make Tibet its own nation would lead to bloodshed.

In conclusion, the Dalai Lama told his followers: “Total independence is not practical. The majority of views have come up supporting the middle-way path, which is right. For the next 20 years, if we are not careful, if we are not prudent in our plans, there is a great danger.”

So, the best policy is hope and wait for a changed China.

Subscribe to The China Post and save.  Click here

SharePrintEmail

Write a Comment

Enter your comments - 1000 characters max

Type in image code

Submit

 Receive China Post promos Respond to this email