Tibet needs to be handled with care [4-4-09]
It was exactly 50 years ago that Dalai Lama marched into Indian territory to escape persecution at the hands of Chinese authorities. Since then he along with his entourage has been staying in India. Till today despite so many rounds of negotiations between Lama and Chinese authorities, the dispute has not been solved. Not only this, there seems to be increasing bitterness on both sides. For example in a recently held press conference in New Delhi Dalai Lama publicly asked, ‘Is there no Chinese journalist in the audience?’. And when the Chinese journalist asked much expected question about Tibetan leaders’ position on the talks with the Chinese authorities, Dalai Lama commented with visible irritation that,’ everybody knows our position very clearly. North America knows very clearly. Japan, New Zealand, and India all know except the Chinese government.’ He went further to say, ‘ it is your responsibility to make clear report to your government. I know your government. I know there is censorship. Your report is meaningless.’ This was quite un-Dalai Lama-like. It surprised the entire media fraternity present for the press conference.
But then one can hardly blame Dalai Lama [born 1935] who has been negotiating and dreaming of going back to his motherland that he had to abandon some fifty years ago. He, like many, suspects that the Chinese authorities are waiting for his death. Once he is removed from the scene, they feel, they will have less formidable foe to deal with. No one can dispute that over a long period of time Dalai Lama has built unenviable international reputation as the spiritual and political leader of Tibetans, a community of 5 million which is facing heavy discrimination in their own homeland. Dalai Lama has managed to keep alive the issue of Tibetans and give the anti-Chinese forces a ready handle to beat China with. He was awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.
Back then, the Dalai Lama had no choice but to flee to India. Since then there has been a see-saw between China and Dalai Lama which goes on even today. Recently the Chinese managed to brow-beat South Africa and got them to ban Dalai Lama’s entry to attend peace conference in Johannesburg. On the other hand in March 2009, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for ‘real autonomy for Tibet’ and the US House Representatives passed a separate resolution demanding that Beijing ‘lift immediately the harsh policies imposed on Tibetans’. Both the bodies backed Dalai Lama’s initiatives for a durable political solution to the Tibet issue.
Since Tibet is India’s direct neighbour we have solid stakes in this problem. We must ensure that Tibet issue is resolved in such a manner that our interests are protected. In stead of working in this direction, it seems that we, like South Africa, go all out to placate China. During Olympic Games 2008 hoisted by China, the Olympic Torch was to be relayed across just about two kilometers in New Delhi-from Vijay Chowk to India Gate. The Government stationed over 20,000 troop, paramilitary personnel, policemen and plain-clothes men in and around that short stretch. The Tibetan refugees were beaten, roads were blocked, and the metro was shut down. It was clear that all this was out of fear of China. And despite such regular gestures from us, the Chinese authorities routinely try to put India in trouble. As recently as June 2007, China had gone to great lengths to coordinate efforts with Pakistan to ensure that the African governments stuck to a stand that would make it impossible for India to play a greater role in the Security Council of the United Nations!
For years Tibet played the role of ‘buffer state’ between Asia’s two giants, India and China. Once Mao successfully led Communist revolution in China, situation drastically changed. People’s Republic of China came into existence in 1949. From the day they came to power, the Communists maintained that soon they shall ‘liberate’ Tibet.
Accordingly on 7th October 1950, as many as 40,000 Chinese troops invade Eastern Tibet. Very soon entire Tibet was under Chinese control. The Chinese invasion left Dalai Lama with no alternative. On the night of 17th March 1959 Dalai Lama had to escape from Norbulingka Palace in Lhasa with handful trusted people. On 31st March, he reached India after a 14-day trek through the Himalayas. Since then ‘31st March’ is observed by the Tibetans in exile as the National Uprising Day.
It was not that all Indians were blind to the reality of Chinese intervention in Tibet. Sardar Patel, that pragmatic leader, had warned that we shall have trouble on Indo-Tibet border. In his prophetic letter written in 1950 he wrote that ‘this invasion has brought China almost up to our gates and this will have a host of consequences.’ All of this came true in later years.
In the case of Tibet, India made one blunder after the other. Initially we accepted the sovereign status of Tibet. Right up to 1949 in all his communications to officials, Pandit Nehru referred to as ‘The Tibetan Government’. Soon after independence he organized the Asian Relations Conference, to which the Government of Tibet was invited to send its representatives, which it did. We should have sustained this position. We gave this up and accepted Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. Since 1954, New Delhi has consistently held that Tibet is a region of China. Despite this, the Chinese fears of Dalai Lama were so intense that it finally culminated into Indo-China war of 1962. The presence of the Tibetan government-in-exile stationed at Dharmashala on Indian territory has been a cause for concern to Beijing. The Indian government has not recognized the government-in-exile and has stated often that it would not allow the Tibetans to undertake political activities. But the Chinese remains skeptical.
Initially Dalai Lama was asking for independence of Tibet. By 1979 discussions began between Beijing and the Dalai Lama. The then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping suggested that short of independence the Tibet problem could be resolved through negotiations. A decade later Dalai Lama moved away from his earlier position of seeking independence for Tibet towards the ‘middle way’ which meant ‘autonomy under Chinese rule’. This did not enthuse the Chinese authorities. His conception of Tibetan autonomy arouses Chinese suspicion. A key component of the Dalai Lama’s idea of autonomy is to unite under a single administrative entity all the areas populated by ethnic Tibetans. More specifically the regions of Kham and Amdo, that currently fall under four different provinces of China, should be grouped with the area that is now called Tibetan Autonomous Region. The Chinese feel that this demand is tactical in nature. The creation of such an entity would merely serve as a stepping stone to eventual independence for Tibet. Hence the deadlock!
For India, Tibet is one issue that has become a stumbling block, standing between its relations with China. Here we must play our cards well. While the question of Tibet’s independence seems to be permanently sealed, we must use the Tibetan issue to derive maximum advantages from the Chinese. This demands a lot of balancing tricks. On one hand we must continue our dialogue with China and on the other hand, we must take active interest in the succession issue of the spiritual/political leadership of Tibetan community. We must try to ensure that a pro-India person becomes the 15th Lama. The succession process will start soon. That will test our political skills. Chinese are unlikely to accept the demand of Greater Tibet as demanded by Dalai Lama and Lama is unlikely to settle anything less than this. He has already given up the demand for independence. Now if he dilutes his demand for autonomy for Greater Tibet, he will loose face among this faithfulls. It is a no-win situation where India is willy-nilly involved. To secure our Northern borders we must these games.
By Prof. Avinash Kolhe
Sr. Lecturer in Political Science at D.G.Ruparel College, Mumbai.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
political analysis
The fragmentation of regionalism
When the PMK announced its decision to leave the United Progressive Alliance [UPA] and join Jayalalitha’a AIADMK for the forthcoming Loksabha elections, this event pointed towards a different feature of Indian polity. It is the fragmentation of regionalism. Once when there was only one regional force to challenge the national political party, now we have more than one force which represents some community or some region of a particular state. Take the case of Tamil Nadu. It is one of the unique states of Indian Union that has produced a strong regional force in the form of Dravid Movement. The DMK came to power in 1967. Since then the power has been alternating between the DMK and the AIADMK. But both do not yield any ground to national parties. Since 1967, no national party has managed to come anywhere near power in Tamil Nadu.
However the Dravid Movement soon broke into various versions. After the death of Anna Durai in 1969, there was a tussle for power between Karunanidhi and late M.G.Ramachandran. Finally MGR broke away in 1972 and launched All India Anna DMK [AIADMK] which came to power later. Today there are PMK, MDMK, etc. in Tamil Nadu. These are small parties with powerful bases among some castes and some regions of the state. For example, the PMK is a party of Vanniyars who form 17% of the population. The PMK is quite powerful in north and North-east parts of Tamil Nadu. In other words, in Tamil Nadu we find a plethora of sub-regional parties which create a grand front. This is how Karunanidhi managed to sweep 2004 LS election by creating a grand front of many sub-regional parties. In these elections AIADMK could not win a single seat thanks to proper negotiations conducted by Karunanidhi. This is the unique feature of regionalism in India.
Today’s political scene in India is in such a flux that all those theories which were put forward to explain to rise and growth of regionalism are now proving grossly inadequate. Theoretically a region/state should have one force which comes into existence to express the aspirations, dreams of the people of the region. This was how it was for quite some time. Not any more. If it was Tamil Nadu yesterday, now we have Andhra Pradesh.
There was a time and that too, not in distant future that AP was regarded as a strong bastion of Congress. But in the 1980s, late N.T.Ramarao floated the Telugu Desam Party [TDP] on the platform of ‘pride of Telugu society’ which caught the imagination of Telugu society. No wonder NTR swept the polls and came to power. This was the beginning of regionalism in AP. For quite some time, the political picture in AP was clear. On one hand there was a national party like Congress and on the other hand there was powerful regional party like TDP. But then came Telengana Rashtriya Samiti [TRS] launched by K.Chandrashekhar Rao who was a senior leader of TDP. He left TDP on the single issue of separate statehood for Telengana. The TRS of K.Chandrashekhar Rao was a formidable force. When the Congress made alliance with the TRS in 2004 LS elections, they swept the poll reducing the TDP to ashes. Since Congress did not honour the promise of creating a separate state of Telengana, the TRS left the UPA in 2008. Same year matinee idol Chiranjeeve launched his party ‘Praja Rajyam’. In other words, today in AP, we have TDP, the oldest regional party. Then there are TRS as well as Praja Rajyam. All are contesting the forthcoming LS election competing with Congress. This clearly shows the fragmentation of regional force.
Even in Maharashtra one gets a somewhat similar picture. The state had its first regional force back in 1966 when Balasaheb Thackeray launched Shivsena to protect the interests of Marathi speaking people. For years this party was confined to Mumbai and some pockets of Thane. It joined hands with BJP in 1989 on the issue of Hindutva. And the alliance managed to grab power in 1995. Then some ten years ago, Sharad Pawar was forced out of Congress and had to launch the Nationalist Congress Party [NCP]. A couple of years ago Raj Thackeray left Shivsena and stared Maharashtra Navnirman Sena [MNS]. As a result today in politics of Maharashtra, we have SS, NCP and MNS as three regional forces battling it out. Though technically Pawar’s NCP is a national party, for all practical purposes, it is a regional force.
Similar situation prevails in Bihar also. There used to be Congress once. Then came Laloo’s Rashtriya Janata Dal [RJD]. Then Ram Vilas Paswan floated his Lok Janashakit Party [LJP]. We also have Janata Dal [U] which is in power in alliance with the BJP. It shows that in Bihar we have three regional forces and two national forces competing with each other for 40 LS seats.
Even in West Bengal this time there is a tough contest between CPM-led Left Front and Congress-Trinamool Congress [TC] alliance. In this case TC and CPM are two powerful regional forces. Like NCP, though the CPM is a national party, for all practical purposes it is a regional party confined to three states of Indian Union. The case of Uttar Pradesh is too clear to bear any discussion.
The above details clearly show that in today’s India not only regionalism, but sub-regionalism has come to stay. Not only this, in some state it is likely to upset some established equations, leading further to political uncertainty. The macro perspective would inform us that this is inevitable as more and more castes/sub-castes, regions/sub-regions assert themselves. This assertion automatically leads to fragmentation of the polity. This will not be a permanent situation and soon equilibrium will come back. With political maturity, each and every political force learns to adjust with each other and work out some type of pact and power-sharing arrangement. Look at the way Laloo Prasad, Mulayamsingh Yadav and Ramvilas Paswan have come together. It may be for tactical reasons but it does show the necessity of coming together. This is integral to the process of fragmentation that it ultimately leads to stability.
By Prof. Avinash Kolhe
Sr. Lecturer in Political Science at D.G.Ruparel College, aMumbai.
When the PMK announced its decision to leave the United Progressive Alliance [UPA] and join Jayalalitha’a AIADMK for the forthcoming Loksabha elections, this event pointed towards a different feature of Indian polity. It is the fragmentation of regionalism. Once when there was only one regional force to challenge the national political party, now we have more than one force which represents some community or some region of a particular state. Take the case of Tamil Nadu. It is one of the unique states of Indian Union that has produced a strong regional force in the form of Dravid Movement. The DMK came to power in 1967. Since then the power has been alternating between the DMK and the AIADMK. But both do not yield any ground to national parties. Since 1967, no national party has managed to come anywhere near power in Tamil Nadu.
However the Dravid Movement soon broke into various versions. After the death of Anna Durai in 1969, there was a tussle for power between Karunanidhi and late M.G.Ramachandran. Finally MGR broke away in 1972 and launched All India Anna DMK [AIADMK] which came to power later. Today there are PMK, MDMK, etc. in Tamil Nadu. These are small parties with powerful bases among some castes and some regions of the state. For example, the PMK is a party of Vanniyars who form 17% of the population. The PMK is quite powerful in north and North-east parts of Tamil Nadu. In other words, in Tamil Nadu we find a plethora of sub-regional parties which create a grand front. This is how Karunanidhi managed to sweep 2004 LS election by creating a grand front of many sub-regional parties. In these elections AIADMK could not win a single seat thanks to proper negotiations conducted by Karunanidhi. This is the unique feature of regionalism in India.
Today’s political scene in India is in such a flux that all those theories which were put forward to explain to rise and growth of regionalism are now proving grossly inadequate. Theoretically a region/state should have one force which comes into existence to express the aspirations, dreams of the people of the region. This was how it was for quite some time. Not any more. If it was Tamil Nadu yesterday, now we have Andhra Pradesh.
There was a time and that too, not in distant future that AP was regarded as a strong bastion of Congress. But in the 1980s, late N.T.Ramarao floated the Telugu Desam Party [TDP] on the platform of ‘pride of Telugu society’ which caught the imagination of Telugu society. No wonder NTR swept the polls and came to power. This was the beginning of regionalism in AP. For quite some time, the political picture in AP was clear. On one hand there was a national party like Congress and on the other hand there was powerful regional party like TDP. But then came Telengana Rashtriya Samiti [TRS] launched by K.Chandrashekhar Rao who was a senior leader of TDP. He left TDP on the single issue of separate statehood for Telengana. The TRS of K.Chandrashekhar Rao was a formidable force. When the Congress made alliance with the TRS in 2004 LS elections, they swept the poll reducing the TDP to ashes. Since Congress did not honour the promise of creating a separate state of Telengana, the TRS left the UPA in 2008. Same year matinee idol Chiranjeeve launched his party ‘Praja Rajyam’. In other words, today in AP, we have TDP, the oldest regional party. Then there are TRS as well as Praja Rajyam. All are contesting the forthcoming LS election competing with Congress. This clearly shows the fragmentation of regional force.
Even in Maharashtra one gets a somewhat similar picture. The state had its first regional force back in 1966 when Balasaheb Thackeray launched Shivsena to protect the interests of Marathi speaking people. For years this party was confined to Mumbai and some pockets of Thane. It joined hands with BJP in 1989 on the issue of Hindutva. And the alliance managed to grab power in 1995. Then some ten years ago, Sharad Pawar was forced out of Congress and had to launch the Nationalist Congress Party [NCP]. A couple of years ago Raj Thackeray left Shivsena and stared Maharashtra Navnirman Sena [MNS]. As a result today in politics of Maharashtra, we have SS, NCP and MNS as three regional forces battling it out. Though technically Pawar’s NCP is a national party, for all practical purposes, it is a regional force.
Similar situation prevails in Bihar also. There used to be Congress once. Then came Laloo’s Rashtriya Janata Dal [RJD]. Then Ram Vilas Paswan floated his Lok Janashakit Party [LJP]. We also have Janata Dal [U] which is in power in alliance with the BJP. It shows that in Bihar we have three regional forces and two national forces competing with each other for 40 LS seats.
Even in West Bengal this time there is a tough contest between CPM-led Left Front and Congress-Trinamool Congress [TC] alliance. In this case TC and CPM are two powerful regional forces. Like NCP, though the CPM is a national party, for all practical purposes it is a regional party confined to three states of Indian Union. The case of Uttar Pradesh is too clear to bear any discussion.
The above details clearly show that in today’s India not only regionalism, but sub-regionalism has come to stay. Not only this, in some state it is likely to upset some established equations, leading further to political uncertainty. The macro perspective would inform us that this is inevitable as more and more castes/sub-castes, regions/sub-regions assert themselves. This assertion automatically leads to fragmentation of the polity. This will not be a permanent situation and soon equilibrium will come back. With political maturity, each and every political force learns to adjust with each other and work out some type of pact and power-sharing arrangement. Look at the way Laloo Prasad, Mulayamsingh Yadav and Ramvilas Paswan have come together. It may be for tactical reasons but it does show the necessity of coming together. This is integral to the process of fragmentation that it ultimately leads to stability.
By Prof. Avinash Kolhe
Sr. Lecturer in Political Science at D.G.Ruparel College, aMumbai.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)