Hi guest, Register | Login | Contact Us
Welcome to Phayul.com - Our News Your Views
Wed 14, Oct 2015 09:34 AM (IST)
Search:     powered by Google
Photo News
Statements &
Press Releases

Book Reviews
Movie Reviews
News Discussions
News Archives
Download photos from Tibet
 Latest Stories
Miss Tibet participates in Miss Global 2015
Congressional Commission report exposes China’s human rights claims
Tibetan political prisoner rearrested for ‘separatist activities’
TYC’s indefinite hunger strike called off after UN assurances
Thousands take pledge to refrain from non - virtuous deeds
Dalai Lama congratulates 2015 Nobel Peace Prize winner
Dalai Lama blesses Petoen School on its 10th Anniversary
Tibetan writer released after more than a decade in jail
Dalai Lama representatives to receive 2015 Liberty Medal on his behalf
Future ‘Tibetan Rocket Scientist’ honored with highest DoE scholarship
 Latest Photo News
Contestants for the Miss Himalaya Pageant pose for shutterbugs, McLeod Ganj, Oct. 2, 2015. The contest, organized by Lobsang Wangyal Productons, will be held On Oct. 3, 2015. 
Phayul Photo/Kunsang Gashon
His Holiness the Dalai Lama joins Swami Guru Sharanand-ji Maharaj (to his right) and members of Karshni Ashram for lunch in Trimbakeshwar, Maharashtra, India, August 31, 2015. Photo/Tenzin Choejor/OHHDL
Exile Tibetan PM Lobsang Sangay hoists the Indian tricolor as members of the Kashag, senior officials of the Central Tibetan Administration participate in an official function to mark the 69th Independence Day of India, Kashag Secretariat, Aug. 15, Phayul Photo
more photos »
Rejoinder to "Autonomy? Think Again" - Lobsang Sangay
By Email[Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:30]
By Lobsang Sangay

Elliot Sperling’s column, “Autonomy? Think Again”, (Times of India July 20th 2009) proves him functionally illiterate on legal jurisprudence. His condescending attitude of knowing it all while Dharamsala knows nothing would have Edward Said rolling over in his grave. His self-censorship also hints of Perry Link's anaconda in the chandelier.

On the one hand, Sperling argues that the Dalai Lama’s efforts to assert the Tibet issue within the framework of the Chinese constitution is fantasy because the Communist government does not take law seriously but merely as a dispensable tool to serve its political ends. On the other hand, he asserts that the debate (on the Chinese Constitution) that Ma Rong opened up in April (actually March) is of critical importance to China’s Tibet policy. If the Chinese Government does not take law seriously, then who cares what kind of debate Ma Rong initiated? If what Sperling said is true, then the Chinese Government can simply scrap the present minority law. Why even debate, if law is simply a tool to be dispensed at will? The fact that Sperling argues the critical importance (emphasis added) of the debate itself is an acknowledgment of the relevance of law.

Sperling cites Ma Rong’s reasoning that China’s Autonomy Law encourages minorities to exclude others from their regions, and privilege their own languages, religions and practices that differentiates them from others. In short, "the current system leaves minorities with little or no sense that they are Chinese." In that sense, Dharamsala's efforts to package the Tibet issue within the Nationality Law seems to have been validated because the memorandum on autonomy makes similar argument and ask its full implementation to preserve and protect Tibetan identity and distinct internal governance.

When Sperling bundles me with envoys Lodi Gyari and Kelsang Gyaltsen, he exposes his lack of understanding of legal jurisprudence. First of all, I don't reinforce the exile government’s view and in a few forums with Elliot Sperling himself, I have presented critical analysis of the negotiation efforts under satiric titles as "Much Ado About Nothing" and "Waiting for God." Furthermore, he knows very well that I am familiar with Ma Rong, and debated with him about Tibet on many occasions, including conferences at Harvard that both Ma and Elliot attended. Actually, Ma Rong's view is not new, an English version of his article was published in 2007 which also proves Sperling is Johnny come lately on this issue.

If Elliot had read my writings, then he would have seen my analysis of the situation in Tibet more as an exposure of contradictions and violations based on the Chinese constitution. For example, in an article titled "China's National Autonomy Law and Tibet: A Paradox between Autonomy and Unity," I argued that whenever there is a clash between autonomy and unity, more often than not unity trumps autonomy and thereby exposing the illegitimacy of autonomy.

Contrary to Sperling’s simplistic label, my personal analysis of Chinese law is premised on Vaclav Havel’s seminal work "The Power of the Powerless," the bible of the Eastern European revolution. Havel argues that authoritarian regimes, no matter how cruel and oppressive, use law to justify their actions because legality is important to legitimize their lies. Hence the power of the powerless is to use the same law to assert their rights. Doing so will either force the regime to implement its law, thereby winning rights for the victims, or will expose regime's lie, thereby undermining its legality and legitimacy: a win-win proposition.

Advocacy of law as a strategy was comprehensively illustrated by Vaclav Havel among others in the Charter' 77, the foundation for revolution in the Eastern European countries. Its Chinese incarnation, signed by thousands of Chinese intellectuals, including the brave Tibetan poet activist Woeser, is Charter' 08, which advocates legal reforms. Similarly, Chinese lawyers’ unprecedented report on the Tibetan uprising in 2008 and representing Tibetan political prisoners and in one case freeing a prisoner (monk Jigme Gyatso) are examples of the power of the powerless. Hence it is imperative to recognize distinct usages of Chinese laws and debates within China at various levels.

Perry Link has written that scholars practice self-censorship by not criticizing China for fear of reprisal. Sperling’s article has self-censorship writ large. On the surface, the article appears sympathetic of the Tibetan people, but on closer look, one notices that regarding the Dalai Lama and Dharamsala, Sperling uses terms such as "ignorance, embarrassing fantasies, functionally illiterate, and wander quite blindly." Sperling concludes his piece with irreverent "best of luck with that one, guys." The article does not have a single critical term about the Chinese Government, the Communist Party and Chinese scholars. If his heart bleeds for Tibetans how come he cannot muster even a single term critical of China's policy in Tibet or even on failed talks? Is this simply Orientalism carried too far? Or perhaps Elliot Sperling sees the anaconda in the chandelier.

Dr. Lobsang Sangay, is a Senior Fellow at Harvard Law School. Dr. Sangay earned his Master's and PhD degree from Harvard Law School and in 2006, selected by Asia Society as one of the twenty-four young leaders of Asia.

The views expressed in this piece are that of the author and the publication of the piece on this website does not necessarily reflect their endorsement by the website.
Print Send Bookmark and Share
 Related Stories
Lobsang Sangay's response to Elliot Sperling (2)
A Response to Lobsang Sangay -Elliot Sperling
Autonomy? Think Again
  Readers' Comments »
DR. of Verbiage (atsong)
Tibetan autonomy still unrealistic (wds1)
Rejoinder to "Autonomy? Think Again" - Lobsang Sangay" (DenpyNetsul)
Rejoinder to "Autonomy? Think Again" (Tsongi)
Lobsang Sangay has shown Political Immaturity. (sonofbod)
A bit childish (anjede)
Yeah, Best of luck with that one, guys. (Phuntsok2005)
article (casio)
cleared ! (Ladybird)
Autonomy? Think again. (Tsongi)
Your Comments

An Open Letter to the Sikyong, Kashag, and Election Commissioner of the CTA
A Personal Encounter With Three bravehearts of Tibet
Interesting correspondence between the Dalai Lama and Nehru (1960)
Why Dr. Lobsang Sangay Again?
A Response to the Open Letter to Tsering Kyi
China’s Fear Remains Even After Tenzin Delek Rinpoche’s Death
M.Moynihan's reply to Office of Tibet rejoinder
Photo Galleries
Phayul.com does not endorse the advertisements placed on the site. It does not have any control over the google ads. Please send the URL of the ads if found objectionable to editor@phayul.com
Copyright © 2004-2015 Phayul.com   feedback | advertise | contact us
Powered by Lateng Online