| Published on 25-03-2008 In World | | Viewed 1561 times | | Why Indian Marxists are silent over Tibet? |
|
| Written by
Girish Nikam | 
The growing protests all over the world by the Tibetans, on a scale unprecedented for decades, has caught the attention all over. That it began so suddenly and in such a well-orchestrated manner in different continents is a sure sign of a well-planned effort. Chinese Government has started crying hoarse about the "Dalai Clique" staging all this to disrupt the forthcoming Olympic games starting in August. The Dalai Lama's protestations that he is not against the staging of the Games, goes completely ignored, by the Chinese government.
India has virtually umbilical relations with Tibet going back into centuries. There is even a link between the two countries in the great epic Mahabharata. The history of Tibet has been one of bloody wars and feuds with the Chinese over the centuries going right back to the 6th and 7th century. In modern times, India has been a haven for the Tibetans, whenever they have found themselves at the receiving end of the Chinese. Everyone knows about the present Dalai Lama having made India his home and running the Tibetan Government in exile from Dharamshala, ever since 1959. But it is little known that he was not the first Dalai Lama to seek refuge in India. His predecessor, Thubten Gyatso, the 13th Dalai Lama, had moved to India between 1909 and 1912, when the Chinese forces invaded Tibet.
Ever since the present Dalai Lama made India his home, after then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, despite Chinese protests, allowed him and lakhs of followers to take refuge, in 1959, Tibet has been a prickly issue between the two countries.
One has to understand that the problem between India and China is essentially over Tibet. What was south Tibet, the Tawang region in Arunachal Pradesh, was annexed into India by the drawing of Mcmohan Line by the British. How it came about itself is interesting. In 1914, Britain, China and Tibet held a tripartite convention, known as the Shimla convention. It was to discuss the status of Tibet, vis-à-vis China. However the negotiations broke down when Britain tried to divide Tibet into inner and outer Tibet. In the absence of Chinese approval however, British worked out a settlement with Tibet, in which about 9,000 sq.kms of southern Tibet, Tawang region was annexed into India, and a new boundary was drawn known as the Mcmohan line. Tibet agreed to it, as an act of defiance against China, and ever since the dispute between India and China continues over the region.
No wonder even now Indian Government makes nuanced statements, as China continues to claim that Tawang is part of China, meaning part of the Tibet Autonomous Region. This is what Sitaram Yechury, the CPI (M) leader, who is the only one from the left parties to have spoken on the recent Tibetan protests when he compared Tibet with Kashmir. Otherwise the left parties have maintained deathly silence. For a party, the CPI(M), which does not spare any time to come down heavily on human rights abuses, anywhere, its silence, despite reports of growing violence by the Chinese in Tibet, has opened them up to criticisms.
Understandably the ideological affinity with the Chinese communist Government has obviously been the reason behind it.
It also continues to see the whole issue through the Chinese prism. There was a good reason for it, when in 1959, the Dalai Lama successfully escaped the Chinese invasion and landed in India. It was widely believed and there is enough evidence to it, that it was a CIA operation.
Ever since, the Tibetan cause has been seen by the leftists as an American ploy to disrupt Indo-Chinese relations. It is another matter that the CIA had given up actively encouraging and supporting the Tibetan cause, in 1972, when then President Richard Nixon had opened historic ties with China. Ever since, the dirty tricks department of the CIA has more or less kept out of it, though the US Government has continued to be a supporter of the Tibetan cause. And this itself is a red rag for the Indian Marxists, to look the other way to what is happening in Tibet.
But now to remain silent over the gross human rights abuses, and the cultural genocide, as Dalai lama terms, being heaped on Tibet by the Chinese, is bound to make the Marxists suspect in the eyes of not just a large number of Indians, but also the world. Comparison with Kashmir is odious, because the problem in Kashmir between India and Pakistan is a recent one, just over 60 years old. While it is virtually a civilisational issue between Tibet and China. Unlike in Kashmir where the Kashmiris are divided over whether they want to stay with India or Pakistan or remain independent of both, Tibetans have no such dilemmas.
It is now an almost settled issue that Tibet is part of China, and even Dalai Lama concedes it and only wants more autonomy for his ilk to practise their culture and religion. It is another matter that the younger generations of Tibetans is increasingly disagreeing with the Dalai Lama, and are seeking independence. "We want freedom" chants were heard as the young Tibetans stormed into the Chinese Embassy in Delhi last week.
In such a situation, why the Marxists are adopting an ostrich attitude is baffling. After all when our other neighbour, Nepal was in the throes of anti-monarchy battles, with the Maoists running riot in the Himalayan kingdom, the Indian Marxists leadership stepped in to work out a truce. The intervention proved most beneficial, and history was made when the monarchy was abolished and democracy brought in. It also signaled the Nepali Maoists acceptance of democracy and giving up their armed struggle. A lot of credit for it goes to the Indian Marxist leadership for working this out.
Is it not therefore time for the Indian Marxists to stop looking at the Tibetan issue through the Chinese eyes, and adopt an independent approach and try to be the bridge between India, Tibet and China? Would it not raise their own status and also disprove their critics that they still hang on to the coattails of their ideological mates, than keep the country's interest above it? It is an opportunity which can change the way they are perceived in this country, and may even pave way for expanding their base. Further silence on the Tibetan issue can damage their image badly and even make all their protests about human rights abuses in future sound hollow. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
