Q: What is your impression of the relevance and the contribution of this referendum to our freedom struggle?

A: My immediate reaction on hearing that our government was thinking of conducting a referendum was one of dismay. I think this referendum has no contribution to make to our freedom struggle and its immediate impact has been one of causing confusion and division among our people. It is not at all feasible to conduct a referendum. A referendum, by definition, means to refer a political question to the electorate for a decision by popular vote and not through representation. This means that all people of voting age should have access to participate, which we know is not possible in our case. Another basic requirement of a referendum is that the question asked is intelligible to the majority and that it is sensibly submitted to vote. The majority of our people, including the community leaders who came for the special workshop held in January 1997, have repeatedly said that they do not understand the question and are confused. So with the vast majority of Tibetans unable to participate in the referendum, this does not amount to a referendum. What we do here in exile cannot be legally binding on the people inside Tibet.

Moreover, this talk of referendum confuses our supporters. After all these years, after so much suffering, after so many people have died, is our government implying that it does not know what it is that our people want? It is also riot clear what this referendum seeks to decide. Is it to decide the goal or the means? If it is to decide the goal, then it amounts to admitting that the government does not know what the Tibetan people want. And mind you, there should be no doubt about what we want. Whether we can achieve what we want is another matter but what we want is, I think, more than clear. It is independence, now and always. While on the other hand, if the referendum is to decide the means, here again, I think a referendum is not necessary because we don't have a choice of means. Our struggle at one level is a struggle for freedom, but more than that it is a struggle for our survival. And in the struggle for survival, all people everywhere, as individuals and as nations, have the right to use any and all means to defend themselves.

Q: What is your argument behind your call for independence?

A: The basic reason why we should opt for independence is that without independence we have no hope. This is the basic underlining fact whether we are talking about the survival of our culture, our identity or our race or even our land. If we are talking about seeking association with China or living with the Chinese on equal terms, then, even culturally, we should start learning Chinese. Why learn Tibetan? How could we be on equal terms in association with China by being a separate people having a separate culture and speaking a language which will guarantee that we will get no job? Even with the Chinese demographic aggression of Tibet, which is the greatest threat to our survival as a people today, if we are seeking association with Chinese, then they have as much right as the Tibetans to live inside Tibet. Our efforts to seek compromise with China, in fact, adds to the gravity of the population transfer problem by encouraging Chinese settlers inside Tibet.

From the view point of international support, if we are talking about seeking compromise with China, autonomy for Tibet or association with China, then the whole Tibetan issue would be reduced to China's internal affair. And to solve an internal affair, we have no business seeking international support. So independence is the key to our survival. Without a nation called Tibet, there cannot be a people called Tibetan. Neither can there be a culture called Tibetan culture. So independence is the first prerequisite and necessary step towards ensuring the dignity and the survival of the Tibetan people and their culture.

Q: Wouldn't insisting on independence backfire on the possibility of an early solution to the Tibetan problem through negotiations with China?

A: More than just asking for independence, we are saying that we should stop putting our hopes on China. We should take matters into our own hands and struggle for independence, in the real sense of the word. Neither hoping, nor asking, nor waiting for independence can serve any purpose.

Those who promote the middle-way approach ask why we are talking about the unrealistic and unachievable goal of independence when we are being out numbered in our own country? But the basic fact is that because we have stopped talking of independence the Chinese have not stopped coming into Tibet. In fact more Chinese have come into Tibet since 1979 than at any time. Giving up independence, therefore, amounts to endangering our future, encouraging the Chinese settlers to move in and making the situation in Tibet worse. As for the matter of time constraint and the sense of urgency, China has very clearly said that time is on their side. They are only playing for time. Unfortunately, we, on our part, are playing into their hands with all our talk about negotiations and referendums.

Q: What methods would you suggest to achieve independence and how feasible do you think they are?

A: First of all, the struggle for independence is not a question of gain or loss, It is a question of right and wrong. We struggle for independence and against injustice because it is our right and not because we think we are going to win or because we have guarantees that we will succeed. This is not a business deal. We do not and must not give up independence because we think we are going to lose or because the road ahead is long and hard.

There is no ground to believe that independence cannot be achieved. As Buddhists, if we believe everything in this world is impermanent and changing, then this should also apply to China's occupation of Tibet. Independence, however, will not come from the Chinese. It is something that we have to achieve through our own struggle. If we just sit and hope and wait, nothing will happen. If we make a move, I believe independence is achievable. This is the lesson of history and the experience of mankind.

Unlike during the Mao era, the present Chinese economy, which is driven by market forces, is vulnerable to sabotage. We must carry the struggle into China. What we lack at this moment is the political will. We always talk about gaining world support. But what are we doing that others can support? Support cannot precede action. We lack the will to fight back and for this there is no substitute. But if we make the decision to fight back, all other shortcomings can be overcome.

If we can disrupt China's economy and raise its unemployment figure from 100 million to 500 million, the discontented and the unemployed populace will themselves bring the government down, creating a situation favourable for our achievement of independence. I think this is possible. And I am not talking about throwing atom bombs when we have none. As for the talks about bringing the Chinese to the negotiating table, one thing is clear they have no need to talk to us. We have to create that need. I am definitely not against talking to the Chinese. I don't have a secret formula for Tibetan independence but one thing I have known since I was a school boy is that waiting is not the answer.

Q: How would you say that the other three sample options are not as feasible and applicable as independence?

A: First of all, the middle-way approach should never have figured as one of the choices in the referendum. The reason why His Holiness the Dalai Lama suggested the idea of consulting the people was because of the failure of the middle-way. As far as the Chinese are concerned we already have autonomy and the people inside Tibet who know what autonomy with Chinese characteristics is like do not want it.

In my view, we cannot hope for anything more from the Chinese than what they have allowed for in the so-called 17 Point-Agreement. At that time, China had a need to make some concessions even if only on paper and even if they never intended to respect the agreement. At the time of signing the treaty, Tibet was not completely under its control. The Korean war had just started and, they did not know what the world's reaction would be to their military aggression of Tibet. They even didn't know what India's reaction would be. Once we signed away our independence, they moved in and did what they wanted. They never respected a single clause of the unequal treaty that they had imposed on us. Now today, all of Tibet is under them and no government in the world has the courage to question that. We are no threat to their position. So, why should they concede any part of their control over Tibet?

Independence is not less achievable than the middle-way. For both we have to struggle. This talk about negotiations is based on something Deng Xiaoping is supposed to have said in 1979. Where is the documentary evidence that he said it? Even if he said it, now he is dead. Who will respect what he has said when he never said it as a Chinese state policy? Do we have one single instance of a Chinese official statement which says that anything other than independence can be discussed? Moreover, to say that something can be discussed does not mean that it is going to be granted.

As for self-determination, it is a principle under international law. But it is not enough to say that all nations recognise and respect the principles of self-determination. The vital question is who will implement this in our case? As for the idea of Satyagraha or truth-insistence, I think it is not worth discussing because it only adds more confusion. Is it a movement? Is it an ideology? What exactly is truth-insistence? And whose truth are we talking about? If we are talking about struggling for the benefit of the enemy, then we should drop the idea of struggling for anything at all. Our struggling itself would hurt China's interest. If we are supposed to cherish the interest of Chinese, we shouldn't be doing anything. We should fold up our exile government and go back under their terms.

Q: What do you think about our government '5 stand on the issue of independence?

A: In the past the government's policy enshrined independence as the goal of our struggle and this is in the records. But now we are told it was never independence and that from the very beginning we were thinking of striving for a genuine autonomy.

All our attempts at dialogue between China and His Holiness have failed because, in essence, there has never been a common ground. When China say His Holiness should give up independence, they are talking about the past. Tibet's future, for China, is not negotiable. It is a settled thing in their view. His Holiness says that although Tibet was independent in the past, he is willing to settle for something less for Tibet in the future. There is no meeting point between the two views and that is why there is no negotiations.

Essentially, China makes these statements only to diffuse the situation whenever there is an increase in international attention on Tibet. But the next day they say something else. They are playing for time and unfortunately we are playing into their hands. This referendum creates the illusion of choice. We have no choice. We misunderstand that what we ask for is something that Chinese are going to give us. China has never said that it is going !o give us the middle way. Nothing is on the table from China's side. Only independence is a goal worthy of continued suffering and sacrifice. I am not going to waste a single day of my life struggling to live in association with China.

My criticism about our government is that their present position is not worthy of the name "non-violence." It is non-action. There is a big difference between the two. Sitting and hoping that the U.N might do something, that the U.S might do something, that the Chinese might change their minds is not non-violence. Non-violence is an active force. The government should decide that our unchanging goal is only independence and give each of us a task. Then it will be real non-violence. The call of the time is to do something and not just wait.

Q: Don't you think targetting China would backfire on the Tibetans inside Tibet?

A: Until now, the main reason cited against an armed struggle was that for every Chinese that we may manage to kill, we will lose at least a hundred Tibetans. This was the experience of our guerilla movement in Mustang; We should not forget that we are not the only people who are struggling against the Chinese occupation. There are people in Eastern Turkestan and Southern Mongolia. Although the situation in Manchuria is terrible, it is not without hope. Today, we don't have a military option to achieve independence. We also don't have a political option. We can't win a vote on human rights, forget independence. This was illustrated by the failure of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights to pass a resolution on Tibet. We don't have the Arab oil money behind us. When the United States refused to give a visa to Yasser Arafat to address the General Assembly in New York, the Arab oil power moved the General Assembly to Geneva. But we don't command that kind of political power. Today, the only aspect of Chinese might that is vulnerable to our nonviolent struggle is China's economy, the soft underbelly of their market economy., Geopolitical considerations around the world point to the fact that China is not favoured to become the next Soviet power. This is evident from ASEAN admitting Vietnam and Burma before they even qualified economically. The Asian countries are worried about China's growing economic and political influence and its military show of power. International developments, changes in China and the situation in Tibet itself all point to the fact that the situation at the moment is still conducive to regaining Tibet's independence..

I have given this analogy of a small mouse cornered by a big hungry cat. Should the mouse just sit there, close its eyes and hope that the cat will change its mind? It is very much in the nature of cats to eat mice and if the mouse just sits there, the cat will eat it. The only hope, a one in the million, is for the mouse is to make a dash. It may either land straight inside the cat's mouth or make its escape good. There is no guarantee. But then, we are not born with guarantees in life. It is the same for us if we sit, do nothing and place our hopes on China. It is in China's interest to wipe us out. But if we rise up and struggle, we may die a day earlier, a year earlier but we will die with a hope - not only for ourselves, but for future generations.

Q: What is your message to all the Tibetans who will be going to the polls if the go-ahead for the referendum is given?

A: They must make a resounding call for independence. We have no choice. Our survival depends on our ability to achieve independence. We, the minority in exile, do not have the mandate to change the goal. This generation does not have the mandate to foreclose the options of the future generations. In respect for the memory of all those who have died, we must continue to struggle for independence.

*A director ofA mnye Machen Institute

Source: Tibetan Bulletin, July-August 1997

[ Homepage ] [ Referendum ]



This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 22-Aug-97