Tawang, a controversial place in the state of Arunachal Pradesh in India, situated on the border of Tibet, is all set to welcome Dalai Lama on Sunday, November 8th. 2009. The place is controversial because the monastery located in Tawang is the place where Dalai Lama took refuge 50 years ago while escaping from the then unstable Tibet in 1959.
However, a vehemently opposing China clearly states this visit as a "political one" and describes the event as an "Anti-China separatism" promoted by Dalai Lama, as always.
The disagreement between China and Tibet dates back to the early 20th century. China claims Tibet was a part of them and is also controlled by them, but the Tibetan literature based on Sanskrit, and developed by King Songsten Gampo in 7th century, proves Tibet to be an independent state for thousands of years.
The Dalai Lama met then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1959 to urge India to pressure China into giving Tibet autonomous status. Jawaharlal Nehru didn't want to increase tension between the two countries, but provided shelter to Dalai Lama soon after the Chinese army invaded in 1959.
Interesting, don't you think?
Just because China is considered as a "rising power" in the world map, do you think they should be able to display their muscle-flexing to any country they want?
Or, should Tibet and the Dalai Lama be considered an international right of free speech?
Current Indian prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, says "Dalai Lama is an honored guest of India and is free to go anywhere in India."
Well, that's the way it should be. I can't threaten my neighbor even if I feel my enemies are there in his house -- unless they attack me -- it's sheer arrogance and intrusion to move otherwise.
This is an excellent and important article, Katha!
China is obviously terrified of a free and recognized Tibet for some reason. Their treachery against the Panchen Lama is well documented:
http://www.tibet.com/PL/index.html
I think China wields the power because they can -- they own so much of the free world's debt that they can use that leverage to earn their political will without any protest.
Thanks David!
I don't care whether China is terrified to recognize Tibet as a free territory.....but I think they should and have to limit expressing their concern and apprehension within their own boundary.
Dalai Lama has been given protection by India and is staying here for last 50 years. The stance of India is also pretty clear about it – as a spiritual leader Dalai Lama is the most honored guest of the country and is free to move around but he is not encouraged to make any political move.
Based on that, how can China dare to even utter a single word of protest against his visit to Tawang? How ridiculous is that???
I am glad Dr. Manmohan Singh clearly expressed India’s stance on it.
I think China likes to control the message, Katha, and the Dalai Lama is one political protester who "got away." China found, and punished, his Panchen Lama -- to prove to the rest of the world precisely what they think of Tibet and that religious movement and to demonstrate they still have the power to crush and repress. If China ignores the Dalai Lama then they admit defeat. If China keeps fighting him, then they are able to keep face since there is no real end. Perhaps China considers the Dalai Lama their -- Osama bin Laden -- in some parallel way in that they need to keep alive the example of the monster they let get away to keep everyone in line at home?
I understand and agree David, but don't you think it's futile and ridiculous?
Yes, it is futile and ridiculous for most of the world, Katha, but China has made this matter one of life and death and, for them, they are incredibly serious about their national betrayal and as long as they are actively persecuting him, they haven't lost the battle yet.
Yes David, I understand - but unfortunately, with this situation the phrase "world-peace" sounds like a mockery....
Great article, Katha. I really hope things work out for Tibet. They should not be bullied about as they have been for years.
Right Gordon, neither they should be, nor the ones who are supporting their cause...