Karma Chonphel, MP; Karma Yeshi, editor of Voice of Tibet; Thinley Norbu, Tibet Support Group Coordinator.

Sunday 7th September, Community Hall, Dharamsala.

Report by Emilie Hunter, Students for a Free Tibet –UK.

Karma Choephel and Karma Yeshi drew in crowds of 120 plus who gathered to hear our distinguished speakers elaborate on contemporary Tibet in an event organised by Students for a Free Tibet –UK (SFT UK) and SFT Dharamsala. Proponents of Rangzen (independence) their patriotic dedication has been exemplified through their involvement in Tibet Youth Congress, where both men have been Vice-President, through to their current work. As an MP and well-known advocate for Rangzen we had asked Karma Choephel to talk about Tibet’s modern history, and Karma Yeshi to discuss Tibetans current situation, using his knowledge as editor of Voice of Tibet.


The Tibetan Referendum- political abstention by the electorate.

Speaking on the 1997 Tibetan Referendum and Tibetan people’s modern history, Karma Choephel’s speech revealed Tibetan’s struggle to embrace democracy’s responsibilities; 64.7% requested His Holiness to choose Tibet’s future political path. Mapping the referendum’s four-year development from 1994 through to the final outcome in 1998, Karma Choephel’s provocative insight into the fundamental problems of the referendum result prompted intelligent discussion from the audience. I was not alone in my ignorance of the disquiet that surrounds the referendum’s result.

From 1994, when calls for a referendum and public analysis on the current Middle Way approach began, grassroots education, discussion and debate began within Tibetan settlements to select four voting options: Rangzen (Complete Independence), Middle Way (autonomy within China), Satyagraha (search for Truth) and self-determination. Yet only Rangzen and Middle Way are political options –search for truth and self-determination are fundamental rights entitled to all peoples; Gandhi’s Satyagraha is a philosophy of inner truth, providing the genesis of any political decision. As such it cannot be an end in itself, as any search for truth reveals that Tibet is an occupied sovereign nation, thereby requiring a second referendum to decide upon the path to achieve the return to sovereignty. Self-determination is a fundamental human right, bestowed upon the Tibetan people by the United Nations in 1965.


The fifth option? The discomfort that Tibetans felt in making decisions on their political future became clear when a fifth option emerged just prior to the referendum vote- passing the responsibility to His Holiness to decide their future path. Securing 64.7% of the votes, from Tibet and the global exilic community, Karma Choephel reminded the audience of His Holiness’s repeated moves away from political life- establishing a democratic government to take responsibility for Tibet’s future political success, and requesting Tibetans to take on the personal responsibilities of democracy. Waiting until 1998 whilst more results could be collected from within Tibet, His Holiness’s decision has been congratulated as a sign of political and democratic wisdom- allowing more votes to be counted. Yet its wider implications are often ignored. Could it have been that His Holiness was waiting for a more decisive result from within Tibet? Karma Choephel argued that His Holiness’s decision to maintain the Middle-Way policy was based less on political conviction than out of a compassion-based compromise indicating His Holiness’s recognition of the weight that his opinion carried within the Tibetan population.


The Middle Way’s shortcomings. The Chinese government continue to place unachievable pre-dialogue conditions upon His Holiness, who must accept that Tibet and Taiwan has always been part of China, yet his monk vows forbid him to lie. The Middle Way requires acquiescence from the Chinese that is currently lacking; in 45 years of aggressive occupation, China flouted its own 17 Point Agreement and has yet to demonstrate flexibility towards Tibetan autonomy, appearing as an albatross- dead-weight to its own ideals. In conclusion, Karma Choephel raised some of the personal difficulties that would occur under genuine autonomy –how would Tibetans live alongside the Chinese descendents who had raped and murdered their family members? How would Tibetans integrate into an economical situation so heavily biased in favour of Chinese without massive resentment amongst the Chinese settlers? How would Tibetans’ nationalism live alongside and within the regime that had committed unspeakable atrocities and bled their country to its current state of atrophy?

In light of these concluding sentiments, Karma Yeshi started with an anecdote, indicative of Tibet today – a Tibetan beggar, imprisoned by Chinese authorities for singing Tibetan folk songs in Lhasa at the behest Chinese tourists.


Lhasa-Golmud railway will accelerate population transfer. Fear of suppression and arrest are exacerbated by China’s East-West transfer policy –Tibetans have now become a minority within their homeland, as 6.5 million Han Chinese outstrip 5 million Tibetans. Further accelerated by the Golmud-Lhasa railway construction, population transfer is the most comprehensive method of eliminating cultural identity. Running parallel to the semi-constructed Lhasa-Golmud highway, the line is fraught with technical difficulties, it destroys fragile landscape, disrupts rare animals migratory patterns and soaks millions of dollars in the most poverty-stricken area within China. The universal fear of the railway line ensuring rapid and permanent influx of Chinese citizens, each receiving high financial incentive to settle in Tibet, has fast become reality. And in exile, Tibetans political activity continues to dwindle –at Delhi university only 200 of 500 Tibetan students will protest, government workers protect their job over their nation, whilst the politically active remain outside official sanction.


Identity Cards embody Tibetan’s exile-identity. Holding a small rectangle of card in the air, and visibly shaking, Karma Yeshi reminded Tibetans that their true identity is encapsulated within their identity cards- not their warm homes, racy motorbikes, elaborate jewelry or good jobs. The paper, which entitles them to refuge in India, embodies their impermanence- the invitation from a nation-state to a stateless people is being overlooked in favour of the material attributes they should be seeking within their homeland. As guests, Tibetans are party to greater political freedom than their relatives within Tibet- excluded only from voting- they are recipients of every other right- to own property, to live with dignity, to receive education and freedom to practice religion.


Lack of political action within the Tibetan community. Imploring Tibetans to carry their IC card with them as a reminder of their transience in India, he pointed out that the low levels of political activity amongst Tibetans is diametrically opposite to their strong support for Tibetan culture. The example of Democracy Day (2nd September) saw a maximum of 2000 Tibetan supporters, whilst the preceding teachings by His Holiness draw far greater crowds. Lamenting that Talking Tibet was organised by a non-Tibetan student group, Karma Yeshi implored the Tibetan audience to take the initiative and get involved, as time is running out.