& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Tremor on the roof of the world

The Chinese revolution failed to overthrow the former serf-owning ruling class precisely because it was embedded in the Buddhist religious institutions of the Tibetan theocracy. The locus of the independence movement inside Tibet is in the monasteries, the sole remaining political institutions of feudal power. The movement is kept alive by decades of simmering resentment in the monasteries against secular state institutions that have increasingly challenged their power and influence, and redistributed monastery land to the peasants.

Billy I. Ahmed
A wave of protest and riots has rocked Tibet since March 10 -- the 49th anniversary of a failed rebellion led by the Dalai Lama in 1959, and has drawn global condemnation of China's alleged human rights record in Tibet. The impression given is that China is using its ’ police and army to violently enforce a brutal occupation on peaceful Tibetans.
No doubt there will be some human rights abuses whenever riot police and troops are brought out in force. However, it is important to look behind the media headlines to understand what is happening.
The US government has been funding and encouraging Tibetan exiles in India through the US Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and through covert operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a continuation of the long history of CIA support for Tibetan uprisings after China formally asserted sovereignty over Tibet in 1951.
With China's rapid rise as a global power economically and politically, there is increasing reason for the US government to find ways to destabilise a potential .competitor on the world stage. Human rights have always been a convenient pretext for selectively mobilising world opinion against, and pressuring, potential opponents.
But, in recent days, the US National Security Council has had its eyes warily focused on yet another reason to destabilise Tibet; to seek a foothold in that remote pan of the world.
In an ABC Television interview on "This Week with George Staphanopoulos," April 13, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley unintentionally revealed a new hidden White House agenda behind its coven backing for the pro-independence movement in Tibet. In response to repeated questions from Staphanopoulos on whether President George Bush would attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in Beijing over concerns about China's policy on Tibet, Hadley mentioned "Nepal" in repeated slips of the tongue.
Hadley's concern arises out of the surprising electoral victory by the Maoists in Nepal's elections for a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution. Not only does this popular mandate quicken the end of the monarchy, but it also decisively marginalises even the centrist Nepali Congress, which the
Koirala family has dominated until now.
The Maoist victory in Nepal is a boost to Maoists in India who, through armed struggle, have taken over large zones under their control in the central and northern regions of the country. The situation has been of serious concern to the government of India as well as in the White House.
The violence in Tibet did not start as a government crackdown on Buddhists and Tibetan dissidents seeking independence or greater autonomy from Beijing. It started with Tibetan rioters attacking Hans and Huis in Tibet, and their shops and properties. This is substantiated by the Dalai Lama's repeated appeals to his followers to stop the violence.
Tibetans do have legitimate frustrations because of economic distortions and social alienation resulting from rapid capitalist development throughout China. This must be viewed in contrast to the historical context of Tibet's violent serfdom past presided over by the Buddhist theocracy before 1959.
It is argued by proponents of Tibetan independence that China's presence in Tibet is an occupation. Yet, China today includes 55 officially recognised minority nationalities, composing 8.5 per cent of the country's population. Should each of these nationalities seek independence? What would happen if each of these minority nationalities were to become independent and form their own countries?
Some could be economically viable in their land; most probably would not. But all would become open to CIA schemes to subvert China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, North Korea, and Nepal. History leaves no doubt that the fragmentation of nation states would be destabilising without any added prospect of advancing democracy, human rights, or social justice.
The state in China has brought
about dramatic socio-economic changes — including land redistribution from the monasteries to the peasants, secular education, healthcare, and gender equality. It has also pumped billions of dollars in subsidies to develop the minorityregions.
The Chinese revolution failed to overthrow the former serf-owning ruling class precisely because it was embedded in the Buddhist religious institutions of theTibetan theocracy. The locus of the independence movement inside Tibet is in the monasteries, the sole remaining political institutions of feudal power.
The movement is kept alive by decades of simmering resentment
in the monasteries against secular state institutions that have increasingly challenged their power and influence, and redistributed monastery land to the peasants.
Paradoxically, it is also the opening of Tibet to international tour-ism that has revived many Buddhist temples and monasteries as tourist attractions, providing an opening for the clerics to spread their influence.
Nevertheless, Tibetan society is deeply divided over the protests. Many Tibetans, except those in exile, seemingly do not regard China's presence as an occupation. They oppose independence. Even while they revere the Dalai Lama as a religious figure, Tibetan peasants oppose the protests, fearing the monasteries will revive the serfdom of the past
The Dalai Lama himself has been angered by the Western insistence on Tibetan "independence.” In a press conference on March 20, in Dharamsala, India, the Dalai Lama expressed his frustration: "The whole world knows the Dalai Lama is not seeking independence, one hundred times, thousand times I have repeated this. It is my mantra - we are not seeking independence."
So why are "human rights activists" in the West demanding what the Dalai Lama himself is not? This fact alone is consistent with an exogenous Tibetan separatist movement, not a true human rights movement that supports the hopes of Tibetan people. The exogenous separatism is driven by the external influences of the US and other Western governments.
Silly I Ahmed is a tea planter, columnist and researcher.