Click to play videoThe world is watching. That's how the international reaction to the simmering protests in Tibet can be best described. The uproar has reared its head in neighbouring regions and international capitals like New Delhi, Kathmandu, Berlin and even Toronto.
Meanwhile, China on Monday moved in troops and tanks into Lhasa. The Chinese government also cracked down on YouTube over the weekend as a method of repressing media coverage of the protests.
Despite the outrage, most countries are cautious about China's role. The Government of India, too, says it is distressed by violence but shies away from any statement about China's violation of human rights in Tibet.
And that brings us to the question of the day that was asked on CNN-IBN show Face the Nation: Does India feel Tibet is no longer a cause worth fighting for?
On the panel of experts to debate the issue were former president of the Samta Party and sympathizer of the Free Tibet Movement Jaya Jaitly, member of Free Tibet Movement Dawa Lokyitsang and Congress Spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
Taming Tibet
China's surrender deadline to pro-independence protestors in Tibet has ended. So far 13 are officially dead. In India, young Tibetans staged protests in Bangalore, Delhi and Dharamsala.
How is it that the Congress-led Government, which is so vociferous about religious freedom in states like Gujarat is silent about religious minorities in Tibet?
“If you start comparing Tibet with Gujarat then you are forgetting all notions of sovereignty.” Singhvi said and then added, “The Congress party has specifically reiterated its stand that it’s a matter of great concern. We have conveyed all the right words. Beyond that it’s a foreign country with its own sovereignty. By a dignified position in terms of international diplomacy we will deal with the issue.”
Many believe that since China is an economic behemoth that needs to do business with India, so the country should not spoil its relations with China with regard to Tibet.
Reacting to this argument Jaitly said, “We should not forget the Tiananmen Square episode. The whole world had stood up for it then and it made a difference to human rights and to China.”
“Human rights is something that should not block itself with boundaries. I am shocked that the Congress party thinks that a few diplomatic words are enough. We are in a way preventing the Tibetans from protesting in India. I wonder if Abhishek knows that a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the early 90s had said that any refugee in India has exactly the same rights as the citizen of India except the right to vote,” she added.
The land of the free
Many have argued that it would suit Tibet to be a part of China to engage with it as an economic power. Does seem that at some point the movement is a romantic one?
Disagreeing with the argument, Lokyitsang said, “Tibet is and was an independent nation. It is not a romantic movement because whatever is happening inside Tibet is obviously real.”
But the movement seems to be divided now. There is a group called Tibet Youth Uprising, which is disappointed with the Dalai Lama and claim that his middle path has diminished the cause of Tibetan independence.
“I don’t think we have lost focus at all. The people inside Tibet and the ones in exile are united in fighting for the freedom of Tibet,” Lokyitsang said.
But what happens to this cause, which does not have diplomatic support from any country. After all when Kososvo declared independence from Serbia, a number of countries supported it. Regarding Tibet, many Governments have been cautious saying they deplore the violence and yet nothing is being done about it.
“Every country that the Dalai Lama visits, he is met by state leaders. And that is a big message. The US giving their Congressional medal of honour to the Dalai Lama was another big message. And every time China protested. If it wasn’t an important matter then why would it do so?” Jaitley asked.
Questioning the UPA Government’s diplomatic policies Jaitley said, “The other day the Prime Minister visited Arunachal Pradesh but he was too scared of the Chinese to visit a part of his own country – Tawang. After he came back the Chinese protested that why did he have to go to Arunachal at all. What about diplomacy there?”
Replying to Jaitley, Singhvi said, “There is no appreciation for the PM when he visited Arunachal. Here the problem is that he did not visit a town in the state! Did Jaya Jaitley read the PM’s and Pranab Mukherjee’s statements which said that Arunachal is an integral part of India. The Chinese protests were completely rejected.”
However, Jaitley said that this Government is only worried about “diplomatic niceties.”
“People in Tibet who are just fighting for cultural autonomy, they want to practice their own religion and speak their own language. If you can fight for freedom of expression in India like MF Husain’s then why can’t you cross the border and say that it’s the right of the Tibetans also?” Jaitley asked.
Treading the middle path, Singhvi reiterated, “We have spoken out and sympathised with Tibetans. It’s we who gave them shelter. But there were non-Congress governments in the past. Why did they not do what Jaya Jaitley is suggesting? That is because you can be sympathetic but you cannot invade the other country.”
Who is at fault?
There has been criticism that the Dalai Lama is responsible for this present situation. Many believe that he has never spoken about independence but only about real autonomy.
It is also believed that the Dalai Lama can be easily manipulated, he keeps calling for dialogue and he has also not come to any decision on who his successor would be. All this has led to China strengthening its hold on Tibet.
Refuting the allegations of the Dalai Lama Jaitley said, “This is a Chinese argument which is coming through the Indian Communist media. You cannot accuse a man who is pursuing a path of non-violence. He is finding ways of adjusting with somebody he wants to live with. He is respected all over the world for taking this middle path and making Tibet a zone of peace, which is very much in India’s interest. We brush that aside and say that that this is his fault!”
But what is one to make of when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited India? Tibetan protestors were banned or confined to Mcleodganj. If this is not fear of China then what is?
“This is a highly exaggerated version. There is no question of fear of China,” Singhvi retorted.
“We met China on equal terms. Every country makes sure that protests are permitted but you cannot allow it bang in front of a visiting dignitary. To suggest that it is fear of China is wrong. India has given shelter to Tibetans for years,” he added.
But taking a cue from what the Congress Spokesperson said, Jaitley argued, “It’s a shelter as we told author Taslima Nasreen that ‘stay here but don’t open your mouth’. Taslima must not offend the fundamentalists and the Tibetans must not offend the Chinese. The nation must stand up for moral and Gandhian values if we call ourselves the land of non-violence.”
But is the Congress still following the legacy of former prime minister Jawahar Lal Nehru’s foreign policy?
“It is because we are following his legacy that we have a remarkable foreign policy. And that legacy is that when you give guest status to people they are free to exercise their rights but within the limits of diplomatic niceties of that country,” Singhvi said.
Concluding the debate and reiterating her stand, Lokyitsang said, “All over the world Tibetans are united in fighting for something that is rightfully theirs. We really want to go back. And yes, we are thankful to India for its support.”
Final results of the question of the day:
Yes: 31 per cent
No: 69 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
 |
 |
 |
|
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.