Deadlock over Tibet

Billed as ‘Fifty years of democratic reform in Tibet’ the meeting held on Tuesday at Westminster University’s Regent Street campus was destined for controversy.

Fifty years to the month since a major and bloody Tibetan rebellion against Chinese rule led to thousands fleeing the country and the Dalai Lama’s exile, three scholars from the People’s Republic took the stage in Fyvie Hall and invited questions from anyone who cared to attend.

Many of those who turned up are Tibetans and as Dr Zhang Yun, Dr Zha Luo and Ms Deji Droma introduced themselves there was a ripple of anticipation in the air. The young Tibetan man sitting next to me had brought along a copy of a report made to the International Commission of Jurists about the suppression of the 1959 rebellion. He had marked several passages which referred to the killing of children and babies.

‘Caged’

The first questioner, a Tibetan, described his homeland as “caged”. He rejected Chinese claims of ‘democracy’ and ‘reform’. How could Tibetans be happy when monasteries were destroyed and exiles were forbidden to return?

Dr Yun mustered the Chinese defence. Tibet had moved from feudalism to socialism. Before China took over most Tibetans were serfs, now they are equal members of society.

An elderly monk stood up, fragile but imposing in his deep red robe. He had been sentenced to 33 years in prison for taking part in a peaceful demonstration in 1959 and asked: “Why are people still rising up and asking for freedom?”

Mixture

The audience murmured in sympathy. Ms Droma fiddled with the strap of her handbag.

Dr Luo spoke out: “Tibetans want many different things. Some want to make money, some want to become officials, some want to be monks.” That is Tibetans, like most people, are a mixture of materialists, spiritualists and opportunists. According to Dr Luo none of these callings is a problem so long as they are pursued “within the law”.

And so the meeting went on. Rather like a mis-buttoned coat questions and responses never matched up. The panel spoke through an interpreter but the language barrier was not the real difficulty. Each side is simply living in a different reality. The audience spoke of invasion and destruction, the panel of liberation and development.

Demanding

At one point Dr Dibyesh Anand, chair of the meeting, turned in exasperation to a particularly vocal audience member who was demanding a panel member “answer the question”.

“He won’t. We can bring people here but we can’t make them answer questions.”

It was a rare moment of shared truth.

The most frustrating aspect of the whole event was that all the panel members are very knowledgeable about Tibet and almost certainly have a genuine affection for the place.

Dr Yun is a specialist on ancient Tibetan history. Ms Droma and Dr Luo are both ethnic Tibetans. Ms Droma is an expert on Tibetan religions. Dr Luo is interested in development and was obviously keen to discuss environmental issues – China plans to spend £1.5 billion on environmental projects in Tibet. In another setting they could have had a fascinating discussion with many audience members.

So was the meeting a waste of time? Well, no. Audience and panel had at least to acknowledge each other’s presence. After the meeting ended Tibetans clustered around Ms Droma and Dr Luo, chatting. More seemed to be achieved over a glass of wine than in a formal meeting, one rule which probably holds true in London, Lhasa or Beijing.

By Brigitte Istim

From BBC background:

The Tibet issue: China’s view

The Tibet issue: Tibetan view