Samdhong Abandons Amdo


If we are to accept public comments issued by Samdhong Rinpoche, the last Tibetan to hold the post of exiled Prime Minister, as reflecting  official policy of the Central Tibetan Administration (former Tibetan Government-In-Exile) then Tibetans (and all those who care about securing a free and independent Tibet) should read the following words extremely carefully.

They are taken from a round-table discussion given by Samdhong in New Delhi on August 27 2009. Why at the time they did not produce ave not elicited any critical response is baffling, significantly these comments, which have not been repudiated by Doctor Lobsang or the present CTA,  are of toxic relevance, in terms of negotiations with Beijing, Tibet’s future status, and in particular an issue which has consistently frozen talks between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and communist Chinese officials. Defining what constitutes ‘Tibet’  in terms of proposals on an autonomy solution [sic].

Samdhong presented a grandiloquent account which, stripped of its adornment, denied that Tibetans are a distinct people “All Tibetans belong to one minority nationality among the 55 minority nationalities of the PRC” and went on further by appearing to offer the astonishing concession of  sacrificing Amdo (so-called Qinghai Province) in exchange for a single autonomous administration over currently existing so-called autonomous regions.The ambiguous assertions and dangerous compromises he presented imply that if the Central Tibetan Administration were to get its way only those Tibetans living in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region (U-Tsang-Central/Western Tibet) Kanlho Autonomous Region (small area in Amdo-East Tibet), Ngapa Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (small area in Amdo-East Tibet), Kanze Autonomous Prefecture (Kham-Eastern Tibet) and Dechen Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (Kham-Eastern Tibet) would supposedly benefit from living under a single proposed autonomous administration.

On the reasoning articulated by Samdhong the overwhelming majority of Tibetans in Amdo, and the region itself, would at a provincial level and in terms of ‘national’ governance remain firmly under the administrative and political control (in reality of course so would all Tibetans, whatever the so-called improvements in autonomy) of communist China’s central regime.

It should be noted that located in Amdo is the source of China’s most important economic and culturally iconic rivers, the Yangste and Yellow River, while the CTA may unrealistically hope to squeeze some movement on autonomous rights, it must surely have recognized that freeing Amdo, a region that is also immensely rich in mineral and fossil fuel resources, from Beijing’s grip was a colossal task. As noted by Warren Smith in ‘China’s Tibet?’:

“The need for China to control the headwaters of its two major alone sufficient reason why China will not allow any expansion of the TAR” (page 280).

At this stage Tibetans reading this may understandably be going into denial, surely the Tibetan Government would never consider agreeing to a truncated Tibetan region, sacrificing Amdo, with Tibetans just another Chinese minority people, and only the illusion of autonomy as protection? Well maybe this analysis is indeed misplaced but take a close look at what Samdhong stated:

“This propaganda (Editor’s Note: Communist Chinese criticism of the TGIE proposals on autonomy) is done to make people believe that His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s aspiration is unreasonable and that he is asking for separation of one fourth of the PRC or that His Holiness is asking for inclusion of certain areas into autonomous region that are not already declared as Tibetan autonomous areas”. (emphasis added) Page 87 Here

So clearly the Tibetan Government-in-Exile is not asking for that! Later in his address Samdhong is more specific:

We are not seeking additional areas to be included in the Tibetan autonomous areas….Nor, is there a need of re-drawing the border between Tibetan autonomous areas and other provinces or autonomous areas” (emphasis added)

See Article HERE

Given that the traditional Tibetan region of Amdo forms a majority of so-called Qinghai Province, and at a provincial level, was not designated (apart from two small strips of territory) a so-called Tibetan autonomous region. If Samdhong’s assertions are to be understood correctly, he and the exiled CTA appear to have decided to abandon  Amdo and its people to an uncertain and dangerous fate under communist Chinese control, while other Tibetans are supposedly to benefit from an improved autonomy.  which Samdhong would happily accept in place of genuine freedom.

On the objectives of the CTA, and by extension, he is implying the Tibetan people (although any claim that he has such a mandate exists only in a world of fantasy) Samdhong notes:

“The basis of our demand is the concept of National Regional Autonomy for minority nationalities propounded by Marx, Lenin, Mao and the provisions enshrined in the Constitution of the PRC” (emphasis added).

In his easy capitulation and compromise his words callously betray those hopes and dishonor the sacrifices of the countless Tibetans who died fighting for Tibet’s independence. Now it would seem that the Central Tibetan Administration is sending out signals that it’s willing to surrender Amdo, as an inducement to make progress in negotiations with communist China.

Towards the end of his speech Samdhong offered the communist Chinese leadership, what he sees as important benefits, which will be to the advantage, of what is carefully described as the ‘Central Government’. One suggestion in particular stands out from the sickening catalog of appeasement, he advises the communist Chinese regime that the CTA’s  proposals (of a single united autonomous Tibetan region, minus Amdo)

“Will help contain local nationalism”

There is only one word which best describes such proposals, treachery.

Published by:


A not-for-profit network of individuals who support justice, human rights and independence for the peoples of Tibet and East Turkestan. Based in a number of countries subscribers are actively engaged voluntarily and are wholly supportive and active on the issue of Tibetan independence. We are not a hierarchical organization, there are no offices, nor do we receive or pay salaries, we do not make money from merchandising sales, and rely upon the kindness of individual donors to finance ongoing research and campaigns.

Categories Miscellaneous32 Comments

32 thoughts on “Samdhong Abandons Amdo”

  1. I was appalled to read the comments of Samdhong Rinpoche. The tibetan people need enpowerment not discouragement in light of what has been spoken about. Someone so closely associated with the Tibetan nation as Rinpoche to speak up over the Amdo issue and clearly seem to deceive our friends by surrendering Amdo over to Communist China is a disgrace and as this article clearly says at the end the action of treachery. I hope the Prime Minister is held accountable for these comments that he has made…….LONG LIVE FREEDOM FOR TIBET AND RANGZEN

    1. Nyima, thank you for your comments. All Tibetans should express their complete disgust and opposition at what Samdhong appears to be proposing.

    2. Dear reader,

      This is absolutely wrong information given here. In the round discussion as well as the paper circulated in the The abandon of Amdo (Qinghai) has never been talk-of. Moreover, TGIE has asked the PRC for a single Tibetan areas autonomous and not of present TAR. If TGIE asking for TAR…then it is useless to ask for Tibetan autonomous area, as TAR is already under autonomy but not a genuine.

      This blog author should read the context of the text well and listen or view recording of the Kalon Tripa speech. And then, it will be good to write his opinion but, like this baseless or rumor speeches.

      I hope reader will read following Christophe comment also.

      1. Actually you would be advised to re-visit the comments Samdhong made relating to this matter, and if viewed minus the distorting lens of loyalty to the TGIE, you may observe the dangerous surrender in his words.Howerve this question can be easily adressed by a simple question: Will Samdhong Rinpoche assure the people of Tibet, (including Tibetans in exile) that in its discussions and proposals to secure a solution and agreement with Communist China, that the TGIE will not surrender the traditional and historic Tibetan regions of Amdo. Kham or U-Tsang?

  2. Traitor indeed! But Samdong lama seems to speak for what’s going on in HH mind! Remember some time ago Samdong saying Tibet internal matter of china. A few months later HH said the same thing. Wait for sometime and HH will say not only Amdo but much of Kham can be sacrificed for some freedom in TAR where Tibetans from Amdo and below Drichu can relocate permanently and enjoy cultural autonomy!
    Their reasons. Independence is impossible therefore genuine autonomy. Now even genuine autonomy is impossible therefore genuine TAR autonomy! And tomorrow genuine Ngari autonomy! Height of appeasement …with no end in sight!
    angry..sad..true…..bad…messed up………………….

    1. Mila, thanks for your comments, we should in a strange way be grateful to the communist Chinese leadership which is not concened with offering any form of autonomy, meaningful or otherwise, so these treacherous proposals will, like the rest of the appeasing efforts to negotiate, run into the ground. Remember, one people, one nation, one solution-independence for Tibet. No surrender.

  3. First of all thank you Bhod Rangzen for accepting me as a friend.
    This article has really opened our eyes to what is going on. But lets be positive and understand that these politics must not divide our fragile nation presently.

    This is the reason why we need an modern educated Prime Minister. His Holiness must protect all beings and often discusses our Chinese brothers and sisters quite often. This is obviously quite extraordinary. However, a Prime Minister must always put thier country first and everything else a far second.

    Our religious leaders are so important to us Tibetans but they can now practice in India and other countries in peace. But, ordinary Tibetans want to live in Tibet and are still attached to land and need land and freedom to raise children, make sure they are proud of their parents, and have wives who look up to their husbands.

    Without a Tibet as a country or land, or independance we lay people have no pride, and cannot raise our heads high. Our children look down on us, our wives cannot be proud of us because without land, country, independance we have lost our dignity.

    Our Tibetan Prime Minister must understand this fact. Our Tibetan Prime Minister must be a lay-person who understands the majority of the Tibetan People who are lay persons. Must understand how difficult it is raising a family as a refugee how to gain respect from family because of being lost in this capitalistic structure.

    Our government does not understand the plight and struggle of the majority of Tibetans. Tibetans want jobs, Tibetans want high paying jobs, Tibetans want an economy, Tibetans want to be proud and be able to compete with other peoples in this world.

    So, what is Prime Minister Samdhong doing about these outlined objectives?

    Thank you.

    Nyima Chukdong.

    1. Nyima, thanks for your very intersting and positive comments. I think you maybe cofusing the Facebook site with this Blog. There are a number of volunteers who run that Facebook page, which is called ‘Bod Rangzen’. Let us hope the Samdhong awakes from his slumber to realize the needs ond hopes of his own people

      1. Yes, you are right tibettruth. I did not know where I was. At any case, I am here now.
        Man, wz up with Dondup la?
        I am going put my thoughts about our Tibet and Tibetans in two folds.

        A. We as Tibetans must unite and work for the same goal, i.e. to achieve the freedom for all Tibetans. By that I mean, community learders all over the world, TYC, SFT, Tibet supporters etc. etc. must work hard to support our govrnment and government leaders.We must keep doing what we have been doing in terms advertizing the world about Tibet situation via protest etc, When that is happening then our leadersr have more weight and leverage when they have a talk with Republic of China.

        B. Being said that, I think it is our government’s responsibity to hold all Tbetans together.By that I mean, Our government at every level must be transperant in what ever they do. Today’s world, it is not exceptable for government to make a decision first and then let the public know second. Those days are over, because we are in democratic sociaty now. Government is for the people and by the people. All the government leaders must be on same page as H.H.The Dalia Lama. If and when government does make some unpopular desisions, then people have the right to speak up. That is call democracy. When we do that then it keeps the government honest.
        Thanks to all the readers. Both Gyallo FREE TIBET.

    1. Since your somewhat insulting contribution fails to address the issues under consideration, we have not featured your comments This blog will not tolerate personal attacks, we suggest you contact directly whoever you are seeking to vilify, as such behaviour is not welcomed here.

  4. Either I’m completely stupid or else I missed something. I read and read again Samdhong’s keynote address on “Greater Tibet”, and apart from the usual surrender of the Tibetan nation I don’t see anything indicating that the TGIE is planning to abandon Amdo.

    Under “3. What is His Holiness the Dalai Lama asking for?”, the first point states: “to have one autonomous administration for all the Tibetan autonomous areas”.

    The word “areas” being employed a few lines above for “Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan autonomous prefectures and counties”, I would conclude that the Dalai Lama is asking for every administrative entities with a “Tibetan autonomous” status, be it a region, a prefecture or a county. In any case, I don’t see any mention in the keynote address of a prefecture or a county of Qinghai being excluded from His Holiness’ demand.

    Additionally, the map ii (Autonomous Areas of PRC”) highlights clearly all these “autonomous areas” of Qinghai, and map iii includes even Tsoshar (Haidong), a prefecture without “autonomous” status but part Eastern of Amdo.

    As I wrote in the first line, did I miss something?

    1. I don’t believe you missed anything. I can’t understand these claims at all; I think TibetTruth is reading something into the statement that cannot be backed up. China is falsely claiming that the TGIE wants to include parts of China into “greater Tibet” that did not originally belong to Tibet, which is obviously false, but in trying to pacify the great Red, I don’t think they are saying Amdo (or Kham for that matter) are going to be lost, just that they ARE part of Tibet, WERE part of Tibet, and WILL BE part of Tibet. I think maybe the issue here is a language one, and Rinpoche is merely asserting that beyond what has already been “claimed” by the TGIE to be part of Tibet (both Amdo and Kham), they want no more land. If this isn’t the case, then technically, parts of Kham would also be at risk for being “surrendered” and why is the outrage ONLY about Amdo?

      1. Pema, thank you for your take on this vital issue, we would not wish to add anything to the article, but ask that you please read what Samdhong says with additional thought and attention. As for surrending areas of Kham not designated as so-called ‘autonomous’ of course that would be equally outageous and demand opposition.

  5. TibetTruth,

    I don’t think you can elude our questions in such a light manner. The subject is rather serious and I would urgently take action if one could prove that TGIE is planning to surrender an entire province for the sake of pleasing Beijing.

    Can you please clarify your point? Can’t you, for instance, precisely quote a sentence of Samdhong where this surrender is made? I must admit that the emphasis given to the quotes of your original post do not highlight anything special for me, and their interpretation is actually based on the meaning given by Samdhong to the word “autonomous areas”. If, as I said before, it includes the TAR and all Tibetan “autonomous” prefectures and counties, then nothing has changed with Dharamsala’s territorial claims.

    1. Christophe,

      Thank you for your comments. We shall not invest additional detail to the article received. Apart from stating that the item is correct in stating that the overwhelming region of Amdo did not receive so-called autonomous status from Communist China, and Samdhong’s statement is clear that the Tibetan Administration is not seeking any additional areas which are not already so-called autonomous territories. The conclusions are there for all to see. Many will legitimately infer from such appeasement that Samdhong’s comments are an unholy declension, offering ever greater morsels into communist China’s bloody maw. As to your reference to ‘proof’, a term which in this context is a somewhat evasive caluse, you will be aware this is not some empirical scientific analysis, the treachery being promoted by Samdhong cannot be measured or confirmed in a test tube. His comments alone are sufficiently troubling. We too understand that this is a matter of some importance, as reflected by the considerable number of emails we have directly received, the overwhelming majority of which do not have any difficulty in recognizing that these proposals would indeed surrender the majority of the region of Amdo. What ever happened to Chol-Ka-Sum?

      1. OK, now I understand from where come the misunderstandings. Actually, you are wrong when you write “the overwhelming region of Amdo did not receive so-called autonomous status from Communist China”.

        As far as Qinghai is concerned, and apart for Tsoshar (Haidong), all prefectures have a Tibetan “autonomous” status. This includes also the Tsonub (Haixi) prefecture, which has a “Mongol and Tibetan (and up to 1985 Kazakh) autonomous” status. In case you have any doubt, please check the map we produced in Amnye Machen Institute; it clearly shows all “autonomous” areas of Tibet and around, and differentiates with colours the different ethnic groups to whom these “autonomous” status have been “granted”.

        I agree that Qinghai does not cover entirely the Amdo province (it actually also includes some parts of northern Kham), but for sure it covers most of it…

      2. Christophe, thank you for your comment. The reference to Amdo (so-called Qinghai Province), in relation to not being accorded autonomous status stands, since it was made not specifically in relation to second level administrative prefectures, of which there are, as you note, a number of such divisions, but really referred to the context at a provincial level, as formulated under the communist Chinese constitution. As you know Qinghai Province (Amdo) is not designated a Tibetan autonomous area, which bring us back to Samdhong’s comments:

        This propaganda (Editor’s Note: Communist Chinese criticism of the TGIE proposals on autonomy) is done to make people believe that His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s aspiration is unreasonable and that he is asking for separation of one fourth of the PRC or that His Holiness is asking for inclusion of certain areas into autonomous region that are not already declared as Tibetan autonomous areas”.(emphasis added)

        There is much dangerous ambiguity and veiled capitulation here, and as noted previously many have reasonably inferred from these comments, what has been suspected for a long time, when it comes to negotiations and concessionsChol Ka Sum is under threat.

        PS: Many thanks for your wonderful map reference

      3. Thank you for your reply. However, I stand on my remark about the meaning of “areas”. In the quote below, it’s obvious that Samdhong use it in a broader sense for all three administrative levels:

        “(…) the total areas habited by Tibetan nationality which are at present divided into Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan autonomous prefectures and counties”

        Further more, he quotes article 2 of PRC’s Regional National Autonomy Law:

        “Regional autonomy shall be practiced in areas where minority nationalities live in concentrated communities. National autonomous areas shall be classified into autonomous regions, autonomous prefectures and autonomous counties.”

        I’m not a fan of Samdhong — by a long shot — and even less of Dharamsala’s disgraceful surrender of the Tibetan nationhood. But in this particular case, I don’t see anything more alarming and distressing than usual.

  6. Christophe,

    We thank you for your rejoinder. We respect your freedom to take a different perspective, however as witnessed by the increasing emails we are receving concerning Samdhong’s comments, there is understandable concern that the Tibetan Government in Exile, in its ever increasing appeasement and desperation to encourage tallks wtih Beijing, may well be considering limiting, its doomed plans for so-called improved autonomy, to geographcally restricted areas. Which are in Samdhong’s words “..already declared as Tibetan autonomous areas”.

    As we have sought to emphasize at a provincial level, Qinghai, which as you know comprises the majority of Amdo, is not an autonomous region. Therefore, although the original article presents such concerns within a speculative framework, there is a reasonable and justified inferrence that Samdhong;s remarks are so ambiguous and infused with appeasement that they do indeed signal a willingness to surrender Amdo (so-called Qinghai Province) as an inducement to communist China.

    This catastophic prospect is exposed when considering that Samdhong’s comments were made in response to official communist Chinese rejection of the TGIE plan for a supposed Single Tibetan Autonomous Region.

    The “single” administration, as the Dalai Lama proposed, would cover today’s Tibet Autonomous Region, the whole Qinghai Province,parts of Sichuan, Yunnan and Gansu provinces.”

    In his roundtable address Samdhong and the TGIE responded to such criticism by suggesting, albeit concealed by abtruse detail, that His Holiness is not

    “..asking for inclusion of certain areas into autonomous region that are not already declared as Tibetan autonomous areas”.

    The writing is clearly upon-the-wall.

    In closing, while we have been happy to accomodate your different view on this, having already exchanged much detail already we would not wish to see, what has been a constructive and informative exchange, become word fencing. Having respected your right-to-reply and provided a response, any further exchange will only reiterate the respective positions on this issue. We shall therore be drawing a line under this particular correspondence.

    PS: We recognize very well indeed your long-held champiioning on Tibet and its independence ,and note too your sometimes criticial position in respect to Samdhong and the TGIE. Long may your work flourish.

  7. Sino-Tibetan negotiations as we all know engenders unprecedented shifts to both Tibetans and Chinese in all aspects of their life–social, political, religious, territorial, etc. Officials at TGiE, headed by Prof. Samdong Rinpoche, are no wonder the first to realize this. Yet for a basis of negotiation, Chinese side demanded a workable proposal (See Memorandum for Genuine Autonomy for Tibetan People), hence the TGiE’s position of “one single ethnically Tibetan entity” comprising of Tibetan Autonomous Regions, Prefecture and Counties.

    As many others might know, the entire Tibetan communities in Qinghai have been incorporated into five Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures (TAP) and a sixth one in combination with Mongolians as Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (MTAP) as early as 1949, when Chinese PLA invaded both Tibet and Mongolia from the eastern corridors. The Tibetan regions currently incorporated in Qinghai Province are 1) Tsojang Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, 2) Tsolho Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, 3) Manlho Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, 4) Golog Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and 5) Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and the sixth being 6) Tsonub/Haixi Mongolian and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture,

    To the one who posted “Samdhong Abandons Amdo” and the, please note that these Tibetan regions inhabited by people of Tibetan ethnicity are still living in the areas constitutionally demarcated as “Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture” according the Laws on Regional Autonomy of the People’s Republic of China. And Tibetan Government are asking for “the incorporation of all Tibetan Autonomous Regions, Prefectures, and Counties into a Single Tibetan administrative unity enjoying genuine autonomy” So neither Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche nor TGiE has abandoned or intends to abandon Amdowas.

    These autonomous prefectures and counties cover more than 90% of the Qinghai provinces. Other prefectures and counties in Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan occupy equal or a little less of the respective provincial territories, altogether encompassing as much as 1/4th of the Chinese mainland. This is one of the reasons that lead to the recent negotiation stalemate.

    Prof. Rinpoche and Tibetan officials are well aware that there are “compacted” non-Tibetan communities such as Mongolians, Hui, Jang and so forth in Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures and counties and there are compacted Tibetan communities in non-Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures and Chinese provinces as well. These are issues that need to be dealt with much care, sensitivity and sensibility, as anybody can make an “Amdo” or other issues out of this non-issue.

    Lastly, Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche and people at TGiE don’t earn money in dollars. Their one month salary is lesser than two-days pay received by many Tibetans in US, Canada and other places, even those doing jobs as simple as housekeeping, landscaping or babysitting, yet they still do have a sense of accountability towards their office and duty, and at least towards the $200 they get each month as salary. I assure that they will not sell Tibetans, as the posters puts it with his or her Amdo issues.

    1. Thank you for your detailed remarks, however the -so-called ‘autonomous territories’ you refer to apply only to a secondary administrative level, at a provincial level so-called Qinghai (comprising the majority of Amdo) is not designated a Tibetan autonomous region. There is as speculated therfore a dangerous ambiguity in the unholy declension proposed by Samdhong’s remarks. Of course all this can be cleared if the Kalon Tripa would answer the following question: Will Samdhong Rinpcohe release a public assurance to the Tibetan people that the TGIE proposals for a ‘single autonomous region’ will include all those traditional areas of U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo? Many Tibetans and supporters will be waiting for his response to this vital question.

  8. The writer is amdo facist like their leaders all so called Alaks totally useless and narrow regionalist. He just wanted to spoil the image of S Rinpoche who is one of the most enlightened Lama in All Tiibet. How can he do such a blunder? Impossible!!!!!!!!!!! But you amdos can because you all are suedo-Tibetans. I am ashamed that you are pat of us Tibetans. Tell me one unselfish amdowas in this whole world. None and none.

    1. Karma, thank you for your very interesting remarks, we have decided to post them, even though they are rather offensive, emotional and fact-less. It is important for people to recognize the poisonous regionalism which exists within Tibetan society, and your comments are an example of such bigotry. If you had read the article through less emotional lenses you would have seen it was actually supportive of Chol-Ka-Sum, and warned againt Samdhong’s ambiguous statement, which proposed a willingness to surrender Amdo. Please read Samdhong’s comments carefully and calmly and you will hopefully see the issues which have been discussed. As to your rather racist comments that “amdos can because [sic] you all are suedo-Tibetans” are you including Kundun and his family also?

    2. We all Tibetan must be united under the leadership of H.H. The Dalai Lama.

    3. I feell sorry for you, Karma la, One of you is one too many for us Tibetans. Think of Tibet and Tibetan people in Tibet. I mean ALL TIBETANS!!!!
      IF WE ARE NOT UNITED, WE WILL FAIL. FREEDOM FOR ALL TIBETANS. Thats all we are asking to Samdhong Rinpoche. Very simple question and need a simple asnwer.

      1. It is not a simple question that we are dealing with. This issue make the core of our issue vis a vis China. There is no simple answer. This issue has been raised in number of parliamentary sessions and public debate since middle path policy has been invented.

      2. It is very simple! Samdhong Rinpoche has issued comments which suggest that the TGIE is willing to abandon Amdo (and probably Kham) in its effort to establish a so-called ‘single autonomous Tibetan region’ under communist Chinese domination.

  9. I think you got my message. That is enough. I am also not a fan of Samdhong and live far away from Dharamsala but I know he will never do such things. He has been leading all those delegations by himself and knows very well how to deal with such subject.

    1. You have everyright to believe that if you wish, it does not however change what he said, or the very dangerous surrender contained in his words.

      Samdhong should meditate on these words: One nation, one people, one solution, Independence for Tibet (Chol-Ka-Sum)

      1. Fine, please define Cholkha sum. Tell who coined this concept and when? What is cholkhasum in 19th and early 20th century Tibet ? How much of Tsen period territoriality have we lost which include many parts your Amdo and Kham? Then show me all those things in a map.

      2. First understand this is not a microscopic examination of the varying degrees of cartographic interpretation of what defines Chol-Ka-Sum, only the communist Chinese and myopic academics gain anything from obtuse debates about territorial and boundary changes. The issue under discussion is acutally about Samdhong’s treacherous comments, in which he suggests a willingness of the TGIE to abandon Amdo (and no doubt Kham too) in the insane and doomed proposal to accept Chinese domination under one so-called ‘single Tibetan autonomous region’. Now if Samdhong and the TGIE do not have such an intention then they will have no difficulty in answering the following question: Will Samdhong Rinpoche assure the people of Tibet, (including Tibetans in exile) that in its discussions and proposals to secure a solution and agreement with Communist China, that the TGIE will not surrender the traditional and historic Tibetan regions of Amdo. Kham or U-Tsang?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s