07-05-2008, 12:26 PM
`It was as if India did not exist`
Claude
Sify Columnist Claude Arpi is a French-born author and journalist who lives in Auroville, India. He has authored several books like The Fate of Tibet, India and her neighbourhood,and Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement, among others.
In his latest book, Tibet, the Lost Frontier he argues that the Chinese annexation of Tibet spells trouble for India, because it has brought the dragon right up to our gates.
In an interview with Ramananda Sengupta, he explains the difficulties he faced while researching for the book ('The Government has confiscated the modern history of India' he says) and why he feels the Tibetans are losing the race against time.
What was the guiding force behind the book? What was the audience you had in mind?
It started as a personal interest. In 1972 and 1973, I visited North India, more particularly the places where Tibetans had taken refuge. It was mind-blowing to see that these people who had lost everything, still continued to smile and joke. I wanted to know their secret. Then I met their leader, the Dalai Lama and realized that we Westerners had something to learn.
Since that time, I have collected tons (now gigas) of documents on the modern history of Tibet . I interviewed a number of old Tibetan officials (including the Dalai Lama several times). What spurred me to write is that I found that most authors had approached the Tibetan issue from the Western historic perspective; it was as if India did not exist. For Westerners, it is simply a problem between the Tibetans, who have lost everything; China, which is becoming a power to reckon with, and the West. Where is India in the picture? This motivated me to go deeper into the issue and write something from an Indian perspective, for the Indian public (and of course for the Western public if they want to understand India's position).
While researching for it, did you stumble across anything which made you look at issues differently from how you used to?
When I started my research, I soon discovered that the Indian Archives were closed to the Indian public. The Government has confiscated the modern history of India. This still upsets me very much. Very few in India seem to care about the fact that the Nehru Papers are locked in almirahs in the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund and permission to view these State documents has to be begged for from the ruling family. It is probably the only nation in the world where such nonsense can continue unchallenged.
Book special: Tibet: The Lost Frontier | Images: A Lama's journey
Where do you think the Tibetan struggle is headed for right now?
I am quite pessimistic. A couple of weeks before the recent events in Tibet, the Dalai Lama had told me in an interview: "The Tibetan society is debating about autonomy versus independence. But the entire debate may be futile in 5 years time, because the Chinese would have swamped Tibet with millions of Chinese, like they did in Inner Mongolia." It is this despair which motivated the Tibetans from the different provinces to manifest and take the enormous risk of marching down the streets of Lhasa and other places in March-April.
After the Dalai Lama, what?
The Dalai Lama is in good health and not so old. I hope that he has many more years to live and guide his people. In my opinion the Chinese leaders are foolish. They should use this golden opportunity to sort out the issue with a very moderate and wise leader who sincerely looks for a win-win solution for both parties. If the Dalai Lama goes before a solution is found, the Chinese may not gain anything. Today, many observers feel that only the Dalai Lama can keep China united.
Can India afford to take a tough negotiating position with China on the Tibet issue?
India first has to be tough to defend her own interests. Once she does this, her position vis-Ã -vis Tibet will automatically be clearer. Nehru purposefully decided to keep the Indian position 'vague', to not upset China, with the result that there is a border issue pending for the last 50 years. In my book (I quote from a Press Conference of Nehru in 1949) in two sentences, he used the word 'vague' five times to define India's position vis-Ã -vis Tibet, while he knew perfectly well that Tibet was an independent nation. Today we are still reaping the consequences of this original sin, look at what is happening in Arunachal or Sikkim. When Nehru finally woke up, (October 1962), it was too late.
Han-isation of the Tibetan plateau, and the gradual erosion of the Tibetan cultureâ¦how long before Tibet becomes just a memory?
A few years only. It is probably why the Dalai Lama had to do huge compromises. During the interview that I mentioned earlier, he told me that he has seen a German film showing new townships which are coming up in Western Tibet (north of J&K and Himachal border). These townships are entirely inhabited by Chinese migrants. The flooding of Tibet with Han migrants is one of the reasons why the Chinese have recently developed the road network in this area and constructed new airstrips. It is a threat for Tibet's cultural identity; it is a threat to India's security. But nobody in India seems to care.
The title says 'Lost Frontier'. Are you referring to the notion of it being a buffer state against China for India, or something more?
The 'lost frontier' is India's frontier. For 2000 years, people, monks, pandits, yogis, pilgrims, traders circulated freely between the sub-continent and the Tibetan plateau. Pilgrims would visit Kailash-Mansarovar through the Ladakh road without any hindrance. There was even an Indian principality called Minsar at the bottom of the Kailash. With the invasion of Tibet in 1950, India lost a peaceful frontier. India lost a friendly neighbour. The frontier became a 'disputed' border. This is the tragedy. All because 'frontier' or 'buffer' had a 'colonialist' connotation according to Nehru; he did not want to be seen as an imperialist and hence did not intervene in 1950. Mao had no such scruples when he 'liberated' Tibet.
Given the increasing frustration among the younger generation of Tibetans over the slow pace of the movement, what are the chances of it exploding into a terrorist movement, as it is already being described by the Chinese?
What the Chinese say about the Youth Congress is nonsense. The only act of violence done by them has been to climb the compound wall of the Chinese embassy in Delhi. One could wish that all terrorists would be as mild in their protests; the world would be better. And let us not forget that the Chinese State is responsible for the death of 1.2 million Tibetans. Is that not terrorism? I don't think that the Tibetan movement will ever become a terrorist movement, the Buddhist roots are too deep in the Tibetan psyche, but it may become more violent than it is today.
Do you see a conflict between the freedom being sought by the Tibetan Youth Congress and the autonomy as sought by the Dalai Lama?
It is a difficult question. The younger generation has a point. If you look at the history of the 'negotiations' between Dharamsala and Beijing since 1978 (when Deng Xiaoping said that he was ready to discuss anything except independence) and today, the Chinese have not moved an inch while the Dalai Lama has made huge concessions. This is very frustrating for the young Tibetans (and probably even for the Dalai Lama). As I mentioned earlier, it is a race against time which the Tibetans are losing. It is perhaps the greatest injustice of the 20th century. It is why so many all over the world support the Tibetan cause.
The problem of autonomy for Tibet is that for it to be genuine would imply a democratic setup within Tibet. This could have tremendous consequences for the political system in China, in particular, the monopoly of the Party. The situation is hence not simple and even 'autonomy' or 'Middle Path' has many other implications for China. Take the example of environment. If it comes to the rivers, who will control them - the local Tibetan government or the Central government? It has such strategic implications that it is doubtful if Beijing would ever agree to give up on the control of the Tibetan rivers.
Even autonomy is not an easy proposition for Beijing to accept. And I understand the Tibetan youth who do not want to live under a totalitarian regime: a regime which constantly insults the Dalai Lama (The Chinese Party Chief in Tibet recently called him a "wolf in monk's garb"). Who would like to live in a Tibet where the Dalai Lama's photos are banned? In 1989, when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the population of Lhasa was celebrating by burning incense and circumambulating around the Central Cathedral. It was immediately declared 'anti-national activities' by the Chinese. Who likes to live in a jail?
âIs India ready to give away part of its territory?â
Claude
Sify Columnist Claude Arpi is a French-born author and journalist who lives in Auroville, India. He has authored several books like The Fate of Tibet, India and her neighbourhood,and Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement, among others.
In his latest book, Tibet, the Lost Frontier he argues that the Chinese annexation of Tibet spells trouble for India, because it has brought the dragon right up to our gates.
In an interview with Ramananda Sengupta, he explains the difficulties he faced while researching for the book ('The Government has confiscated the modern history of India' he says) and why he feels the Tibetans are losing the race against time.
What was the guiding force behind the book? What was the audience you had in mind?
It started as a personal interest. In 1972 and 1973, I visited North India, more particularly the places where Tibetans had taken refuge. It was mind-blowing to see that these people who had lost everything, still continued to smile and joke. I wanted to know their secret. Then I met their leader, the Dalai Lama and realized that we Westerners had something to learn.
Since that time, I have collected tons (now gigas) of documents on the modern history of Tibet . I interviewed a number of old Tibetan officials (including the Dalai Lama several times). What spurred me to write is that I found that most authors had approached the Tibetan issue from the Western historic perspective; it was as if India did not exist. For Westerners, it is simply a problem between the Tibetans, who have lost everything; China, which is becoming a power to reckon with, and the West. Where is India in the picture? This motivated me to go deeper into the issue and write something from an Indian perspective, for the Indian public (and of course for the Western public if they want to understand India's position).
While researching for it, did you stumble across anything which made you look at issues differently from how you used to?
When I started my research, I soon discovered that the Indian Archives were closed to the Indian public. The Government has confiscated the modern history of India. This still upsets me very much. Very few in India seem to care about the fact that the Nehru Papers are locked in almirahs in the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund and permission to view these State documents has to be begged for from the ruling family. It is probably the only nation in the world where such nonsense can continue unchallenged.
Book special: Tibet: The Lost Frontier | Images: A Lama's journey
Where do you think the Tibetan struggle is headed for right now?
I am quite pessimistic. A couple of weeks before the recent events in Tibet, the Dalai Lama had told me in an interview: "The Tibetan society is debating about autonomy versus independence. But the entire debate may be futile in 5 years time, because the Chinese would have swamped Tibet with millions of Chinese, like they did in Inner Mongolia." It is this despair which motivated the Tibetans from the different provinces to manifest and take the enormous risk of marching down the streets of Lhasa and other places in March-April.
After the Dalai Lama, what?
The Dalai Lama is in good health and not so old. I hope that he has many more years to live and guide his people. In my opinion the Chinese leaders are foolish. They should use this golden opportunity to sort out the issue with a very moderate and wise leader who sincerely looks for a win-win solution for both parties. If the Dalai Lama goes before a solution is found, the Chinese may not gain anything. Today, many observers feel that only the Dalai Lama can keep China united.
Can India afford to take a tough negotiating position with China on the Tibet issue?
India first has to be tough to defend her own interests. Once she does this, her position vis-Ã -vis Tibet will automatically be clearer. Nehru purposefully decided to keep the Indian position 'vague', to not upset China, with the result that there is a border issue pending for the last 50 years. In my book (I quote from a Press Conference of Nehru in 1949) in two sentences, he used the word 'vague' five times to define India's position vis-Ã -vis Tibet, while he knew perfectly well that Tibet was an independent nation. Today we are still reaping the consequences of this original sin, look at what is happening in Arunachal or Sikkim. When Nehru finally woke up, (October 1962), it was too late.
Han-isation of the Tibetan plateau, and the gradual erosion of the Tibetan cultureâ¦how long before Tibet becomes just a memory?
A few years only. It is probably why the Dalai Lama had to do huge compromises. During the interview that I mentioned earlier, he told me that he has seen a German film showing new townships which are coming up in Western Tibet (north of J&K and Himachal border). These townships are entirely inhabited by Chinese migrants. The flooding of Tibet with Han migrants is one of the reasons why the Chinese have recently developed the road network in this area and constructed new airstrips. It is a threat for Tibet's cultural identity; it is a threat to India's security. But nobody in India seems to care.
The title says 'Lost Frontier'. Are you referring to the notion of it being a buffer state against China for India, or something more?
The 'lost frontier' is India's frontier. For 2000 years, people, monks, pandits, yogis, pilgrims, traders circulated freely between the sub-continent and the Tibetan plateau. Pilgrims would visit Kailash-Mansarovar through the Ladakh road without any hindrance. There was even an Indian principality called Minsar at the bottom of the Kailash. With the invasion of Tibet in 1950, India lost a peaceful frontier. India lost a friendly neighbour. The frontier became a 'disputed' border. This is the tragedy. All because 'frontier' or 'buffer' had a 'colonialist' connotation according to Nehru; he did not want to be seen as an imperialist and hence did not intervene in 1950. Mao had no such scruples when he 'liberated' Tibet.
Given the increasing frustration among the younger generation of Tibetans over the slow pace of the movement, what are the chances of it exploding into a terrorist movement, as it is already being described by the Chinese?
What the Chinese say about the Youth Congress is nonsense. The only act of violence done by them has been to climb the compound wall of the Chinese embassy in Delhi. One could wish that all terrorists would be as mild in their protests; the world would be better. And let us not forget that the Chinese State is responsible for the death of 1.2 million Tibetans. Is that not terrorism? I don't think that the Tibetan movement will ever become a terrorist movement, the Buddhist roots are too deep in the Tibetan psyche, but it may become more violent than it is today.
Do you see a conflict between the freedom being sought by the Tibetan Youth Congress and the autonomy as sought by the Dalai Lama?
It is a difficult question. The younger generation has a point. If you look at the history of the 'negotiations' between Dharamsala and Beijing since 1978 (when Deng Xiaoping said that he was ready to discuss anything except independence) and today, the Chinese have not moved an inch while the Dalai Lama has made huge concessions. This is very frustrating for the young Tibetans (and probably even for the Dalai Lama). As I mentioned earlier, it is a race against time which the Tibetans are losing. It is perhaps the greatest injustice of the 20th century. It is why so many all over the world support the Tibetan cause.
The problem of autonomy for Tibet is that for it to be genuine would imply a democratic setup within Tibet. This could have tremendous consequences for the political system in China, in particular, the monopoly of the Party. The situation is hence not simple and even 'autonomy' or 'Middle Path' has many other implications for China. Take the example of environment. If it comes to the rivers, who will control them - the local Tibetan government or the Central government? It has such strategic implications that it is doubtful if Beijing would ever agree to give up on the control of the Tibetan rivers.
Even autonomy is not an easy proposition for Beijing to accept. And I understand the Tibetan youth who do not want to live under a totalitarian regime: a regime which constantly insults the Dalai Lama (The Chinese Party Chief in Tibet recently called him a "wolf in monk's garb"). Who would like to live in a Tibet where the Dalai Lama's photos are banned? In 1989, when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the population of Lhasa was celebrating by burning incense and circumambulating around the Central Cathedral. It was immediately declared 'anti-national activities' by the Chinese. Who likes to live in a jail?
âIs India ready to give away part of its territory?â