Chinese forces claimed to have found a Tibetan national flag and political leaflets in his room. Tashi was aged 28.
Image Courtesy: Wokar
According to a report on the Voice of Tibet (21st March) a monk by the name of Tashi Sangpo, based at Amdo Golok Ragya Monastery in Tibet’s eastern region of Amdo (so-called Qinghai Province), has committed suicide (earlier today-21/3/09) by throwing himself into the nearby Machu River.The monastery has been under an effective siege by Chinese security forces since March 10th this year, when pro-Tibet political leaflets were distributed and the Tibetan national flag was flown above the the main prayer-hall at the monastery. The report claims that a number of monks were detained in the monastery, which was subsequently placed under martial lock-down.
News of Tashi’s death has lead to a pro-independence protest in the nearby town of Ragya where Tibetans are reported to be carrying the banned Tibetan national flag, and chanting slogans such as “Independence for Tibet, long live Dalai Lama.”
Speaking with a Regional Secretary of the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) on a recent trip to India, he was amazed to hear that there was no branch of the TYC in Britain, nor any Tibetan organisation openly dedicated to campaigning on Tibetan independence. He was genuinely saddened to hear that during the procession of the Olympic Torch through London in 2008 , out of the hundreds of Tibetans, and thousands of Tibet supporters, there was only one prominent banner calling for independence for Tibet.
Trafalgar Square, London 6th April 2008
There have been a number of reports from Tibetans (and others) in England about the sheep-like conformity amongst Tibet support groups (shared by the Tibetan Community itself), to follow the party-line, as dictated by the Tibetan Government-in-Exile TGIE). Thus, Tibet is selectively presented to the public as an issue of human and religious rights , whilst the Dalai Lama appears to have become something of a personality cult, whose adoring suporters fail to connect with the political aspirations of Tibetans inside Tibet, or seem aware of the actual nature of the struggle being waged by the people of Tibet. Like the Lotus Eaters of Greek mythology for the most part they slumber in peaceful indifference.
Take as an example the tradition in England not to have any freedom march on the actual Commemoration of the Lhasa Uprising on March 10, what is that all about? When protests do take place the messages of such events consistentlty fail to mention Tibetan independence, even these are decided (we have heard) by non-Tibetan supporters, which may explain the absence of any clear political conviction and direction.
According to a circular promoting a Tibetan rally through London for March 6 2010, the ‘key messages’ to be displayed andvoiced by protestors are; “Tibetans have no voice in Tibet”, “China: stop silencing Tibetans”, “Britain: stand up for Tibetans in Tibet”, “Stop the torture in Tibet”, “China stole my land, and “My voice, my freedom”. Now of coure such declarations are not without merit, and are important points to convey, but surely the central message of any event which claims to be championing Tibet’s freedom should be ‘Independence For Tibet’. An assertion in solidarity with the political demands of Tibetans inside Tibet.
At one diplomatic event some time ago, in conversation with an official from Laos (another country with an antipathy towards communist China), the Tibetans in Britain were once described strangely as ‘The Dead People”. When asked what this meant, it was explained that ‘they only protest once a year and the rest of the time they disappear’. To be fair, there are some very active individual Tibetans, particularly amongst the Tibetan youth, however there remains a general lack of determined political activity, and virtually no action on Tibetan independence. This is rather unfortunate, given the sacrifices and suffering inside Tibet, as Tibetans continue their resistance and campaign for nothing less than Rangzen (Independence) . It is also puzzling too, in that in other countries there are affiliated branches of the TYC or Tibetan organisations dedicated to national freedom.
It has been remarked that the reason for such stagnancy is the degree of political influence which is exerted across the Tibetan scene in the UK by Britain’s Foreign Office, which is implacably opposed to Tibetan independence. Certainly the organisation and direction of major political activity, particularly public events, has been largely transferred by Tibetans to the Executive members of the Tibet Society and Free Tibet Campaign (FTC), both of which refuse to campaign for Tibetan independence. Much has been written in the Tibetan Review http://www.tibetanreview.net/ and elsewhere about the relationship between the FCO and the Tibet Society. (See also Tibet: The Facts, A Report Prepared by the Scientific Buddhist Association for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by Paul Ingram TYBA. 1990) An organization, which though reportedly committed by its constitution to campaign for an independent Tibet, is unsleeping in its efforts to promote Tibetan ‘autonomy’ and ‘unconditional negotiations’ between the TGIE and communist China. A position echoed by FTC.
Freedom Flies
When will younger Tibetans in England regain the political initiative, take full responsibility for their own cause and restore the objective of their compatriots for an independent nation? There are some encouraging signs that such process is underway with the emergence of Tibetan Youth UK , however (as with the Students for Free Tibet-England) that organisation must ensure its own freedom-of-movements, exercise an intelligent discrimination and ensure that it has the confidence to assert what Tibetans inside Tibet are dying for. Bho-Rangzen!
