While the Chinese government prefers development over human rights (like freedom of religion and speech), the Indian government, while guaranteeing these rights, neglects development.
Both India and China face the problems of separatism. Indian Naxalite movements and the recent riots and uprisings in Xinjiang and Tibet further highlights the need for respective governments to tackle the issue seriously.
The Indian PM, Manmohan Singh has called the Naxal movement 'The biggest internal security threat to the country'. Armed Naxals are active in at least a third of India's districts. It is estimated that over the years some 6000 people have died as a result of the Naxal insurgency. Apparently, there are some 20,000 armed cadre Naxalites apart from 50,000 regular cadres working in various mass organizations with millions of sympathizers.
In Xinjiang's capital city of Urumqi, riots broke on the 5th of July 2009 killing 197 people, most of them Han Chinese.Although it appears that the immediate cause of the riot was the Shaoguan incident, Chinese media says that the police have evidence that the World Uyghur Congress (whose main source of funding is the US government) masterminded the riots.
In the Tibetan uprising of 2008, at least 19-22 people had been killed (estimates vary) and there were reports of widespread looting and burning of public property. The Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has said that attacks on between ten and twenty Chinese embassies and consulates occurred around the same time as attacks on non-Tibetan interests in the Tibet Autonomous Region and several other ethnic Tibetan areas; and has openly accused the Dalai Lama as having orchestrated the uprising. The facts that a) the uprising took place on the 49th anniversary of the failed CIA backed Tibet uprising of 1959, and b) that it occurred just before the Beijing Olympics, are probably not a coincidence.
Whoever might have been guilty of masterminding the riots and uprisings in China, the fact remains that none of the accused parties can claim that there is a lack of Economic Development in the minority regions. Which is in stark contrast to India; where the government itself has admitted that the lack of development is the main cause of the Naxal menace. The Indian government neglected those resource rich regions for years, and is now paying the price. Now, when the government sanctions any big project in the region, then the local tribal population accuses it of "playing into the hands of multinationals".
By contrast, the Chinese government has put a greater emphasis on economic development and has restricted religious freedom, for example,
- Children under 18 are discouraged from visiting places of worship
- All government employees are heavily encouraged to renounce their religion and become atheist (While the Indian Government is officially secular; the Chinese government is officially atheist).
- Religious practice is restricted to government sanctioned organizations.
- Lack of Freedom of assembly
are just some of the restrictions.
Hence, whatever be the cause of the riots (religious restrictions or outside interference), it is clear that the Chinese government doesn't give as much importance to religion as it does to development. This is in stark contrast to India, where there is complete religious freedom and freedom of speech, but where the government has continuously neglected the development of tribal areas - hence the unrest against it.
And herein lies one of the many differences in these two governments' approaches. China thinks that (in the words of the western media) that it can 'buy' stability with development. A recent conference on Tibet in Beijing concluded with the decision that economic development in Tibet will ensure stability. While the Chinese government often speaks of 'social stability' and 'harmonious society' (President Hu's catchphrase) as two of its main goals; it seems that the only goal of the Indian government is to win elections. In the words of Pallavi Aiyar,
"In India legitimacy is derived from process while in China, it’s increasingly drawn from performance. In India, the process of getting elected and the fact that citizens participate actively in the political process provides governments with their legitimacy. Ironically, the result is that once in power performance is not always as important for a government as the fact of having been elected. In other words the means (of getting elected) become more important than the end (of good governance as defined by delivery of public goods etc)"
In other words, while the Chinese government thinks that it's duty is to deliver growth, the Indian government thinks that it's duty is simply to win elections.
China believes that economic development in minority regions will bring social stability (and has refused to negotiate with the World Uyghur Congress), while the Indian government believes that the right to free speech will ensure social stability; and has offered to talk with the Naxals if they abjure violence.
Most Chinese have so far been largely happy with this tradeoff between better standards of living and Human Rights. While the Indian public and media are proud of their democratic values (The Indian PM, comparing India with China, said, "Unlike China, India has growth with values"), lament on their government's disability to deliver growth and improve living standards. For example, India has more people owning a mobile phone than access to a proper toilet.
Hence, while the Chinese government prefers development over human rights (like freedom of religion and speech), the Indian government, while guaranteeing these rights, neglects development - it would not be an over exaggeration to say that it in fact uses these rights as an excuse to neglect its performance. The standard excuse given is (with even the Home minister P. Chidambaram saying this in an interview) that " if you don't like the government, just throw them out and elect a new one", conveniently ignoring the fact that successive governments have neglected developing tribal areas, regardless of political affiliation. The Naxal movement's origins can be traced back to 1967.
Hence, it can be argued that the Indian government uses political rights as a excuse to neglect development, the Chinese government uses development as an excuse to neglect political rights.
However, if the respective governments combined these two extreme approaches, then they will be in a better position to address their respective problems.
Hence, it can be argued that the Indian government uses political rights as a excuse to neglect development, the Chinese government uses development as an excuse to neglect political rights.
However, if the respective governments combined these two extreme approaches, then they will be in a better position to address their respective problems.
In simple terms, the Chinese government believes that it deserves to be in power because it has developed the country; the Indian Government believes it deserves to be in power simply because the people have voted for it.
(update: This post is also featured on Fool's Mountain on the main page as a guest post. Here is the permanent link to my article and the readers' comments and discussions. )
(update: Also featured at Hidden Harmonies. Permanent link here)
(update: Also featured on theasiamag. Permanent link here)
(update: This post is also featured on Fool's Mountain on the main page as a guest post. Here is the permanent link to my article and the readers' comments and discussions. )
(update: Also featured at Hidden Harmonies. Permanent link here)
(update: Also featured on theasiamag. Permanent link here)
Hi Maitreya,
ReplyDeleteGood post.
Comparing India and China are certainly one of the most fascinating discussions in the international press.
Your perspective of putting this in the context of trade-off and political legitimacy is, to me, a relatively straightforward and clear framework devoid of the many cliche and platitudes that we so often hear in such discussion.
Are political rights, absolute freedom of speech more important than the right to development? Instead of arguing for a all-or-nothing or black-and-white case, looking at people's various rights as a set of rights that are not totally independent and can influence each other is a pragmatic and meaningful framework. Where different countries decide their priority and settle on their trade-off points is entirely conditioned on respectively country's historical, cultural and developmental circumstances. In addition, the priority and the trade-off can and are changing as country develops. Certainly in China's case, these things are evolving rapidly.
Is political legitimacy driven by the process or by the results? This is certainly a very interesting question, but has profound impact on a country's well-being. I don't believe this is simple answer to this. I certainly don't believe that the end should justify the means under any circumstances, but it would presumptuous to claim moral high ground and legitimacy if a political process perennially fails to deliver results. The "results," in turn, are closely related to the trade-offs and priorities that we talked above; therefore they're country dependent and developmental stage related.
In the end, both India and China need to find what most suitable to their countries, but they can also learn from each others experiences, both positive and negative.
The Naxalites aren't separatists, are they? I'm not sure how comparable these issues are?
ReplyDeleteOf course it isn't a coincidence that the 2008 protests and the ensuing riots occurred on the anniversary of the 1959 uprising. That's a common date chosen by people in Tibet who want to protest. Also, I fail to see how people who are mistreated by their government and want to protest are under any obligation to avoid doing so before the Olympics, and I've never heard that any of the protesters denied that motivation, either. Since both of those timing issues are obvious, they could easily have occurred to various people who don't know each other, and thus they are not evidence of collusion. I doubt that anyone is guilty of masterminding the 2008 uprising.
You refer to the "CIA backed Tibet uprising of 1959", but would you similarly refer to "OSS-backed Chinese resistance to Japan in the 1940s", or likewise in the various other cases where the U.S. happened to be the enemy of someone's enemy? You make it sound like the CIA was the main organising force behind what happened in 1959, but I've never seen any evidence that that's the case.
"none of the accused parties can claim that there is a lack of Economic Development in the minority regions." Nobody argues that no economic development is occurring in Tibet, but critics certainly do dispute whether or not the development is actually helping Tibetans, or just people from China who are moving there for business. Personally, I think we can assume that the development is doing some good for Tibetans who live in cities, although the effect might be more modest than it would appear at first blush; on the other hand, most Tibetans live in rural areas, and there is very little development happening there. It's not clear whether they are better or worse off as a result.
"CIA backed Tibet uprising of 1959" is a matter of fact.
ReplyDeleteAttaching a few irrelevant strings to that (e.g. "OSS-backed Chinese resistance to Japan in the 1940s") doesn't change anything but indicates that the inconvenient matter of fact does make some people feel uncomfortable. After all, the CIA tag doesn't fit that well with the "peace and passion, etc." tag constantly preached by your holyman, n'est-ce pas?
"CIA backed Tibet uprising of 1959" is highly misleading and therefore is not simply "a matter of fact". The CIA had some limited involvement in the rebellion in Kham at that point. Some of the Kham rebels who had been trained by the CIA had gone to Lhasa to try to meet with the Dalai Lama, but they had not been able to meet with him successfully. Do you have any evidence to indicate that the CIA played any significant role in causing the popular uprising among Lhasans in 1959?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the CIA was involved with the Khampas and was, if nothing else, rooting for the 1959 uprising might besmirch the reputation of the Dalai Lama if the Dalai Lama was involved in any of these things. Do you have any evidence that he was?
I doubt that you have any evidence for either.
"Do you have any evidence to indicate that the CIA played any significant role in casuing the popular uprising among Lhasans in 1959?"
ReplyDelete"The CIA had some limited involvement in the rebellion..."
I don't want to argue with you about whether the CIA involvement was "significant" or insignificant. The degree of involvement does not change the fact that the uprising/rebellion was "CIA backed".
As to the "holy man"'s link to CIA and its "non-violence" activities, here are some for you to critique:
"The CIA Tibetan activities consist of political action, propaganda, and paramilitary activities..."
1. $500,000 for Tibetan guerrillas;
2. $180,000 subsidy for the Dalai Lama
......
You can check the dis-classified Document 337, Foreign Relations of the United States.
The "holy man" also requested the following: "please inform the world about the suffering of the Tibetan people (sounds familiar?), to make us free from the misery of the Chinese Communist operations [you] must help us as soon as possible an send us weapons for 30,000 men by airplane."
-- message received from the Dalai Lama, 2, April, 1959.
Before we go any further, let's be clear: you are refusing to provide any evidence for the claim that the CIA had any significant involvement in the 1959 uprising, right?
ReplyDeleteSomething (very likely the "CIA" name itself?) must have toughed the funny bone.
ReplyDeleteNobody here except you has raised the issue as to wheather the CIA had "significant or insignificant" involement. All that is mentioned in the original post is that the 1959 uprising/rebellion was "CIA backed".
You could write an essay proving that the CIA had insignificant involvement if you wish. Perhaps you could also prove that the "holy man" have always been a peace preacher as well as a "practitioner", and had nothing to do with the CIA (at least)back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s (if you wish).
Indeed it was me who brought it up, and it was you, anonymous (who can't even be bothered to use a pen name), who has made a big show of refusing to address it as a serious point. Therefore, it seems pointless for me to continue discussing these matters with you.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up a strawman argument. I refuse to participate.
ReplyDeleteu r ignoring one major fact while applauding China's developmental works in minority areas.. they are pushing Han Chinese to settle in these areas.. so much as that soon Tibetans would be an ethnic minority in Tibet.. also the development u talk of.. mostly the Han Chinese r benefiting from it .. and much development is also related to connecting the region to mainland to suppress dissent
ReplyDelete@greg
ReplyDeleteThanks for your excellent comment.
I largely agree with you that the discussion of these topics (especially in the western media) are filled with cliches and platitudes and are quite biased. I've just attempted to simplify these issues; unlike the western media which sometimes over-complicates things.
As you said, its not an all-or-nothing case, its just that the priorities of these two countries are different. These two set of rights (Political and Developmental) certainly influence each other and are inter-dependent; so much so that when a government deliberately favours one while ignoring the other - the results can have disastrous consequences, as we have seen in India and China.
In this case, the results and the process are highly interrelated; and no government can afford to ignore that - as these two countries are slowly learning the hard way.
@Otto Kerner
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
"The Naxalites aren't separatists, are they? I'm not sure how comparable these issues are?"
You're right - They aren't separatists; and I've never said that they are. The comparable similarity in these two issues is that Naxalism is just a more violent form of dissent.
Basically, the greater internal security problems of India can be broadly categorised as:
1) The armed Naxalites, which are active in about 40% of India's land area - or the so-called 'Red Corridor'.
2) Armed insurgencies and Separatist movements in almost all seven of India's Northeastern states.
The Naxals/Maoists are actually worse than separatists, since they want to "overthrow the (central) government using an armed revolution" as their manifesto makes clear.
"That's a common date chosen by people in Tibet who want to protest" "I fail to see how people who are mistreated by their government and want to protest are under any obligation to avoid doing so before the Olympics, and I've never heard that any of the protesters denied that motivation, either"
Now that might be true, but I've not heard of any such protests having taken place during the 25th, 30th or 40th anniversaries. Then why the 49th? Which begs the question - Did it have anything to do with the Olympics?
"Since both of those timing issues are obvious, they could easily have occurred to various people who don't know each other"
You might be right. However, with equal justice it can be argued that due to the timing of the (various)protests which occurred during 2008, they could have been organised and not independent - or that outside help could have been involved.
"I doubt that anyone is guilty of masterminding the 2008 uprising."
Wen Jiabao thinks otherwise - 'The Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has said that attacks on between ten and twenty Chinese embassies and consulates occurred around the same time as attacks on non-Tibetan interests in the Tibet Autonomous Region and several other ethnic Tibetan areas; and has openly accused the Dalai Lama as having orchestrated the uprising.' This largely indicates outside help.
It is a known fact that the uprising of 1959 was CIA-backed; with even Wikipedia saying so.
However, that was a completely different geo-political setup - the Cold War was on; and both sides did what they could to undermine the other.
However, if it emerged that the CIA helped the rebels now in 2008, then that will be an entirely different matter.....
"You make it sound like the CIA was the main organising force behind what happened in 1959"
I most certainly do not. All I say is that the uprising was "CIA-Backed" which is exactly what Wikipedia says.
"OSS-backed Chinese resistance to Japan in the 1940s..."
That event is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I hope that my replies have helped address your concerns.
@(Anonymous): Thanks for your comments.
ReplyDelete@mudit
Thanks for your comments
I'm not 'applauding' China's development work in minority areas; its just that I'm NOT applauding its Human Rights record - in just the same way that I am not applauding India's Development record.
I've heard this many times that China 'pushes' or 'encourages' Han migration in the region. However, no one actually provides any evidence or any government policy which proves it. Which begs the question - Does developing a region encourage migration into that region? Maybe it does. Look at Mumbai. But nobody says that Mumbai's infrastructure and development (the little that there is) is helping outsiders more than local Maharashtrians (except maybe Shiv Sena and MNS!).
"much development is also related to connecting the region to mainland to suppress dissent"
The Tibet-Qinghai railway line was started in 2006. It was the first to connect Tibet to the rest of China. But Tibet had been largely peaceful from 1959 till 2008. The basic fact of providing infrastructure is sometimes construed as 'strengthening political control by China', by Tibetan separatists. So according to them, China shouldn't build any infrastructure in Tibet at all!
"....soon Tibetans would be an ethnic minority in Tibet"
So what? Is there a rule that says that Tibetans and Han Chinese shouldn't live together, or that Tibet should be only for Tibetans? Tibetans can also migrate to other Chinese provinces. Similarly, what if Maharashtrians become the minority in Mumbai (they might already have)? We're all Indians after all.
Also, the Tibetan population has actually increased over the years, owing to the fact that the one-child policy doesn't apply to them.
I hope that my replies have addressed your concerns. I'm in fact going to publish a separate post about minorities in China, in which I plan to address these issues separately.
@ Maitreya
ReplyDeletefirst of all congrats for the really nice style of post
Now coming to ur points
u say that development in Tibet is probably encouraging Han migration there and give Mumbai's example.. but see the contrast.. Mumbai is one of the very few relatively developed lands, so ppl flock here.. its no way that Tibet is more developed than other Chinese cities.. so why Han go there.. thats cos of the incentives given by govt to them to migrate there. U quote India's example that since all Indians r free to go anywhere inside India, same with China, so whats d harm if Han's overtake Tibetans in Tibet. U miss the point that unlike India where people voluntarily accepted India's rule, Tibet was annexed by China against Tibetans' wish. Now I wouldn't expect u to contest this that China forcibly annexed Tibet.
Lastly, why did Tibetans chose 49th anniv to revolt and not 25th, 35th etc. Two reasons for it. One: they earlier hoped that may be talks will deliver them some kind of autonomy. over the years, this hope has subsided with the Chinese govt waiting for the current Dalai Lama's death and having captured the Panchem Lama and posted its own. Second, its logical to make urself hear during a major event like Olympics when more people are likely to hear u and when China will be more embarrassed. didnt Subhash Chandra Bose wanted to intensify India's revolt during World War turmoil. People do want to make the best of their chances. whats wrong with that. why do u smell a rat for no reason at all.
sure we need to learn a lot from China.. we need to learn how to do rapid development.. we should learn to send educated politicians to govt.. we should stand up to the west and talk tough when needed .. we should protect every inch of our land .. we should make enemies' enemy our friend .. we should aggressively scout for natural resources elsewhere in the world.. we should enter regional alliances and be an integral part of them (ASEAN etc)
ReplyDeletebut the China danger to India is real and the present govt is presenting a chalta hai attitude.. when the Chinese objected to the construction of a forward border road in J&K, India complied and stopped work. WHY? when China complained against the Dalai's visit to Arunachal, India severely restricted his movements there. India doesnt allow Tibetans to freely protest in India. isnt right to protest or right to be heard not there in India
the only reason China is not attacking us today a la 1962 is that the trade with China is presently $ 100 bn and it doesnt want to lose the moolah. hence it is egging Pakistan to create trouble by supplying all kinds of weapons.. it is instigating Nepal against us.. it dares to protest our sale of arms to Bhutan when it so blatantly supplies arms to Pakistan
i know these discussions r beyond the scope of ur post but since u seem interested in India-China politics.. thought u would like to dwell on these
@mudit
ReplyDeleteThanks again for commenting. Although you also go off-topic which in fact amounts to no less than spamming the thread.
I am already planning to publish separate blogposts on many of the issues you raised.
"thats cos of the incentives given by govt to them to migrate there"
Again - What Incentives? Can development be considered only as an incentive to migrate?
I agree that TIbet is less developed than eastern China. But that's no excuse to actually stop people from migrating there.
"sure we need to learn a lot from China"
Seconded. That's exactly what my blogpost said.
"when the Chinese objected to the construction of a forward border road in J&K, India complied and stopped work. WHY?"
Because the Indian Government is chicken, that's why! When S.M.Krishna (The External Affairs Minister) was asked in Parliament about this, he said "...Government of India had no role to play either in the starting of that road project or in the halting of that road project. It was purely a decision which the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir has taken, with which the Government of India was neither consulted nor was it brought to our notice. Only we came to know through the media reports about that road..." In effect, he was just shifting the blame. As if anyone was stopping him from calling up the Jammu and Kashmir government and asking about it!
"unlike India where people voluntarily accepted India's rule, "
Well, that's what our textbooks teach us. However, tens of thousands of Naxals and Separatists would beg to differ.
Again I must say that I think that there are only a few people on each side of the border who want secession or to overthrow the government. The majority just want peace. Same thing in Kashmir.
"they earlier hoped that may be talks will deliver them some kind of autonomy"
Well, the current round of talks have been going on since 2002. 14 talks have taken place so far. Is it coincidental that they choose the 49th anniversary only?
"its logical to make urself hear during a major event like Olympics when more people are likely to hear u and when China will be more embarrassed"
Correct. That's why I said in my blogpost that its 'probably not a coincidence'.
However, it also was a good time for an outside party to orchestrate the revolt.
What I am saying is that all arguments cut both ways. Hence, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think we should refrain from passing judgement.
" why do u smell a rat for no reason at all."
See above
Your other comments are quite off-topic and should rightly be considered as spam.
"it is egging Pakistan to create trouble by supplying all kinds of weapons"
And now the US has joined the fray too!
Also, when China supplied Nuclear technology to Pakistan; it had not signed the NPT.
And how were they supposed to know what A.Q.Khan would do? Even the Pakistani government didn't know that.
"it is instigating Nepal against us"
It certainly isn't. We are in fact building an airstrip in Nepal.
"it dares to protest our sale of arms to Bhutan"
It certainly doesn't. And even if it does - so what? Unless the Indian government does what it did with the Kashmir road.....!!
"the present govt is presenting a chalta hai attitude"
I wholeheartedly agree.
"i know these discussions r beyond the scope of ur post but since u seem interested in India-China politics.. thought u would like to dwell on these"
You're right, they ARE beyond the scope of the post. And I am already working on separate blogposts about these topics.
Might I just add that I completely appreciate and respect your concerns about the perceived level of threat from China to India.
Maitreya,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response.
You say, "I've not heard of any such protests having taken place during the 25th, 30th or 40th anniversaries. Then why the 49th?" What about the protests in 1989 that led to martial law? Those occurred a few days before March 10. I don't have a list of Tibetan protests with dates, so I don't know for sure, but I thought protests on or about March 10 were a regular occurrence. The government its increased paramilitary presence in March 2009 specifically to deter any new protests.
"Which begs the question - Did it have anything to do with the Olympics?"
My working hypothesis is that the decision to have protests and riots was made independently by a lot of individuals and small groups. I'm sure that some of them chose their timing partly on the basis of the Olympics -- and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
"Wen Jiabao thinks otherwise - 'The Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has said that attacks on between ten and twenty Chinese embassies and consulates occurred around the same time as attacks on non-Tibetan interests in the Tibet Autonomous Region and several other ethnic Tibetan areas; and has openly accused the Dalai Lama as having orchestrated the uprising.' This largely indicates outside help."
Wen Jiabao is a politician, so what he says is not necessarily the same thing as what he actually believes. I doubt the Chinese government has any evidence that the Dalai Lama or anyone close to him planned the 2008 disturbances, because if they did have evidence, they would have produced it by now. The fact that there were also disturbances at Chinese embassies and consulates abroad doesn't prove or imply anything.
The fact that Wikipedia uses the phrase, "CIA-backed" doesn't make it true. That just means that an editor with an axe to grind left his fingerprints on that article. Why did you even bother to mention the CIA at all, if not to imply that they had some sort of important role in the events that transpired?
I mentioned "OSS-backed Chinese resistance to Japan in the 1940s..." and you replied, "That event is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with the topic at hand." Naturally, it has nothing to do directly with the topic at hand, but I brought up as an analogy. One wouldn't typically say, "OSS-backed Chinese resistance to Japan in the 1940s..." because the backing of the OSS is generally not salient. If someone did say that, you would naturally wonder what point they were making by bringing it up. By analogy, I wonder what your point was in bringing up the CIA.
Maitreya, you say, "Similarly, what if Maharashtrians become the minority in Mumbai (they might already have)? We're all Indians after all."
ReplyDeleteWould it matter, then, if Indians became a minority in Maharashtra? Do you think nobody would care? Would it matter if Bhutanese became a minority in Bhutan?
Why does the political boundary really make a difference? The fact that Tibet finds itself on one side or the other of a line drawn on a map, should we expect that to matter as far as how people on the ground feel about what happens?
To turn to the facts, though, I think you're right to be skeptical of the claim that the Chinese government is actively relocating Chinese settlers into Tibet. As far as I can tell, this happening only on a small scale if at all. In fact, research by Andrew M. Fischer shows that Tibetans are in no danger of becoming a minority in Tibet as a whole any time soon. However, Tibetan urban areas considered separately could become majority-Chinese. Lhasa probably already is (although it's hard to say how much of the Chinese population is transient), which is particularly significant because it is something of a holy city in Tibetan religion.
@Otto kerner
ReplyDelete"I don't have a list of Tibetan protests with dates "
THAT'S why I think that unless there is overwhelming evidence, we should refrain from passing judgement, about the uprisings.
"I thought protests on or about March 10 were a regular occurrence"
I don't think there is any evidence for it.
"What about the protests in 1989 that led to martial law?"
If you are talking about the Tienanmen square massacre ,then I don't think that had anything to do with Tibet.
"Wen Jiabao is a politician, so what he says is not necessarily the same thing as what he actually believes"
Same might be true for the Dalai Lama.
"The fact that Wikipedia uses the phrase, "CIA-backed" doesn't make it true"
"Why did you even bother to mention the CIA at all, if not to imply that they had some sort of important role in the events that transpired?"
The Dalai Lama has admitted taking help from the CIA. As for Wikipedia, I think that it can be trusted on a majority of topics.
"By analogy, I wonder what your point was in bringing up the CIA."
My point was that if we want to find out whether or not the uprisings had outside help, an obvious first step would be to determine whether any previous such occurrences had outside help. But as I said earlier, that was a completely different geopolitical system.
"Would it matter, then, if Indians became a minority in Maharashtra?"
That's a ridiculous analogue. Tibetans and Han Chinese are the citizens of the same country, just as Maharashtrians or other Indians.
"should we expect that to matter as far as how people on the ground feel about what happens"
I repeat that a) I think that there are only a few people on each side of the border who want secession or to overthrow the government. The majority just want peace. and b)unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think we should refrain from passing judgement.
I agree with all your other conclusions and opinions.
Maitreya,
ReplyDeleteThe Tiananmen Square protests happened in June. I was referring to the events in Lhasa in March, 1989. I'm sorry to be blunt, but your punditry on Tibetan politics would carry more weight if you did a little more reading on recent Tibetan history.
"The Dalai Lama has admitted taking help from the CIA."
Everyone knows the Dalai Lama took help from the CIA when he as in India. Has he admitted taking help from the CIA before he fled Tibet? If not, then I don't see how that's relevant to the March 1959 uprising. Also, as I mentioned to the anonymous, the Dalai Lama himself was not involved in the uprising, so CIA support for the Dalai Lama isn't directly relevant, either.
"That's a ridiculous analogue. Tibetans and Han Chinese are the citizens of the same country, just as Maharashtrians or other Indians."
Here's a little "debate and discussion 101" type primer: if you intend to have a civil conversation, try to refrain from peremptorily dismissing your counterpart's opinions as "ridiculous". As I asked in so many words in the same comment, "Why does the political boundary really make a difference?" I don't see why it matters that they are citizens of the same state.
"I think that there are only a few people on each side of the border who want secession or to overthrow the government. The majority just want peace."
You're talking as if "secession" and "peace" are mutually exclusive. In principle, they are not. I suppose it most likely that most Tibetans want both secession and peace. I'm not sure how committed they really are to peace; it's just that violence doesn't do them much good, since they have lost a war with China in the past and are likely to lose again. So, "wanting peace" isn't that meaningful if you only want it when you're weak.
But when I said, "how people on the ground feel about what happens", I wasn't referring to secession, I was talking specifically about how the locals feel about migration into Tibet. China keeps its hold on Tibet for geopolitical reasons, and most people in Tibet are in no mood to challenge them over it; but that doesn't mean they can't hope for better different policies regarding, for instance, migration. Why would they care if the person moving to Tibet is Chinese or Indian or Kenyan? Do you really think most Tibetan people, in the privacy of their own thoughts, are thinking, "Oh, well, we're all Chinese"? Other than a propaganda term that was invented in the 1950s, there is no word in Tibetan that means "China-including-Tibet". The normal word for China in Tibetan (gyanag or gya) only refers to the non-Tibetan parts of China. "We're all gyanag" would be nonsense to a Tibetan.
Maitreya,
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental problem is that the supporters of the Free Tibet movement holds Tibet Independence as an axiom (based on their predetermined moral judgement). The so-called meaningful autonomy is just a political trick. With that in mind, there is no way that any meaningful agreement can be reached by the two sides. Accordingly, any attempt to improve the living standard of the people in Tibet (e.g. building railways) will be met with criticism because the more prosperous the life there becomes, the less enthusiasm the FT movement receives. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that the best scenario for the FT movement is to create chaos in Tibet, or at least create the perception that the life there is like "hell on earth".
"punditry on Tibetan politics"
ReplyDeleteI've never claimed to be an expert on Tibet. That's why I use phrases like 'unless there is overwhelming evidence, we should refrain from passing judgement' etc.
However I do admit that I was not aware of the events in Lhasa in 1989. (Don't be sorry for pointing that out btw.)
""Why does the political boundary really make a difference?""
By that logic, Californians should stay in California and New Yorkers in New York, and so on for all states/countries. Migration can sometimes be the inevitable cause of development. And according to the research by Andrew M. Fischer that you cited, Tibetans are in no danger to become a minority in Tibet soon. And I repeat - If the PRC really wanted that, why would they relax the one-child policy for Tibetans?
"Do you really think most Tibetan people, in the privacy of their own thoughts, are thinking, "Oh, well, we're all Chinese"?"
I don't know what Tibetans are thinking in the privacy of their own thoughts. And given the freedom of speech that they enjoy, hardly anyone else may know either.
However, I most certainly do not agree with you that Wikipedia can't be trusted (about the CIA involvement in 1959). However, if you say that you are absolutely sure of the facts, may I suggest that you edit that Wikipedia article yourself, so that other people may know about it. Because most people consider Wikipedia as a standard reference work and I've seen very few people denying that.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThanks for the excellent comment.
"Accordingly, any attempt to improve the living standard of the people in Tibet (e.g. building railways) will be met with criticism because the more prosperous the life there becomes, the less enthusiasm the FT movement receives"
My thoughts exactly. As I said earlier, the very basic act of building infrastructure is often construed as strengthening 'Political Control' over Tibet.
BTW, This is in stark contrast to India, where the government's failure to improve the living standard of the people is the major cause of the violent dissent.
@Otto Kerner
ReplyDelete"Would it matter, then, if Indians became a minority in Maharashtra?"
"try to refrain from peremptorily dismissing your counterpart's opinions as "ridiculous""
I am sure that many people would have found that comment of yours ridiculous.
"One wouldn't typically say, "OSS-backed Chinese resistance to Japan in the 1940s..." because the backing of the OSS is generally not salient. If someone did say that, you would naturally wonder what point they were making by bringing it up."
The Chinese resistance to Japan in the 1940s is irrelevant, regardless of whether it was backed by the OSS or not. However, the 1959 uprising is relevant; and hence the question that whether the CIA backed it or not also becomes relevant.
"The fact that Wikipedia uses the phrase, "CIA-backed" doesn't make it true. That just means that an editor with an axe to grind left his fingerprints on that article."
If given a choice of believing either Wikipedia or you - there are no prizes for guessing what me, or most people, would choose.
@ Maitreya
ReplyDeleteThanks for ur quick response.
I think u took to heart some of my comments which went against ur core thoughts on the matter and that too on ur personal blog.
Regarding going offtrack and the offence u took for it, pl provide links to the relevant posts where you are discussing broader India-China relations and the real Chinese threat (i dont believe its just a perception)
Here, I somehow find that the discussion is divided into camps, myself and Mr. Otto on one side and urself and Mr. Anonymous
I am very curious to know the nationalities of Mr. Otto and anonymous. That would make the discussion more interesting and revealing.
Looking forward to some insightful discussions on Indo-US relations and US-China relations. As well the politics over Afghanistan, India's and Pakistan's strategic depth over it. If you are discussing them in any post, do provide links to them.
As a last note, you are doing great work. Keep it up
Maitreya,
ReplyDeleteOtto is simply irritated by the inconvenient fact that the much touted holy TI movement and the even more touted glamourized holy man could be linked to a notorious organisation which have long been engaged in some "not-so-holy" actitivties around the world.
As a result, he is, like many other enthusiasts, desperate to have the "CIA" tag removed from any text/report/comment(perhaps even memory) that has something to do with their much beloved TI movement and its paramount leader -- the perhap only living god left on this planet.
The living god just finished another ritual of "promoting peace, human value and religious harmony" in the White House. Who could disagree?
But, let's have a look at the holy man's record.
Peace:
The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and one of the world's most prominent advocates of "nonviolence", said in an interview that it might be necessary to fight terrorists with violence, and that it was "too early to say" whether the war in Iraq was a mistake.
(September 18, 2003, The New York Times)
Human value:
"Tibet was characterized by a form of institutionalized inequality that can be called pervasive serfdom [before 1959]"
(Goldstein, Melvyn C. (1971) Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of "Human Lease" in Traditional Tibetan Society The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol.30, No.3)
Religious harmony:
"Photos of Shugden leaders are posted on city walls, branding them as traitors. Signs at the entrance of stores and hospitals forbid Shugden followers from entry. It’s apartheid, in Buddhist land."
"Our reporters followed an ostracized Buddhist monk as he tried to affront the fellow villagers who have banned him. 'We’re not violating Buddha’s teachings, and we’re excluded from everywhere just because of our religion' he complains."
"These monks must be expelled from all monasteries. If they are not happy, you can tell them that the Dalai Lama himself asked that this be done, and it is very urgent."
("The Dalai Lama's Demons", France 24)
@mudit
ReplyDelete"I think u took to heart some of my comments which went against ur core thoughts on the matter and that too on ur personal blog."
I don't think I did. What gave you that idea?
If a comment goes against 'my core thoughts', we can discuss it, that's what blogging is all about. I welcome alternate views. The fact that its on my personal blog makes me all the more happier.
"pl provide links to the relevant posts where you are discussing broader India-China relations and the real Chinese threat (i don't believe its just a perception)"
I am going to post about these topics soon; and I'll send the links to you.
As far as the China threat goes, its not JUST a perception; and I've never said that it is.
Thanks for commenting. Needless to say, you're welcome to visit and/or comment at any time.
Another anon
ReplyDelete@otto
How could ordinary people prove what CIA has done? What is certain is that CIA has done a lot of things, many of which illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDBriDq4LRI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QYZBMIBOck&feature=related
@otto
ReplyDeleteIf you are still looking for evidence about CIA involvement in Tibet, please read quite well researched article "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth" by Michael Parenti, Ph.D. in political science from Yale University.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
There were few references to documents linking CIA involvement in Tibet
"I am sure that many people would have found that comment of yours ridiculous."
ReplyDeletePerhaps they would have, but generally an appeal to popular opinion is of very little interest to me. I'm interested in hearing you give your arguments for your own opinions.
One reason that I'm not interested in popular opinion is that many people tend to have conflicting opinions which fit uncomfortably together. On the one hand, I'm sure a lot of people would be offended by the idea citizens of a country should need permission from the government to move to another part of that country. On the other hand, if you asked people whether Chinese people should be allowed to move to Tibet in unlimited numbers, I'm sure a lot of people would say that obviously they should not. Now, those two opinions are not logically compatible without some qualifications, but I don't think most people have really thought that deeply about either of them.
"By that logic, Californians should stay in California and New Yorkers in New York, and so on for all states/countries."
No, that gets at precisely my point. Do you really think that the relationship between California and New York is similar to the relationship between Tibet and the Chinese metropole? I don't. The difference is not a political boundary but a social and cultural boundary. (There is an additional difference, which is that Tibet is an ethnic autonomous region, which means that under Chinese law it has the authority to regulate migration into its area. A better analogy would be to ask whether New Yorkers should be allowed to move to an Indian reservation).
"Migration can sometimes be the inevitable cause of development."
That's an argument that applies equally well to international migration as to internal migration. And yet, every country in the world seems to find it in their own interest to regulate migration of people from outside the country, in spite of the supposedly "inevitable" demands of development.
"And according to the research by Andrew M. Fischer that you cited, Tibetans are in no danger to become a minority in Tibet soon."
Tibetans were, at the time of Fischer's writing, in no danger of becoming an overall minority in the Tibetan region soon. That was somewhat surprising and good news when I heard it. However, I believe Fischer was writing before the completion of the railway, so that might have increased the dangers somewhat. Moreover, there are serious dangers that some specific places within the Tibetan region could see Tibetan become demographically marginalised, especially in urban areas. To what extent that is a problem is something that could be discussed at length. I agree with Phüntso Wangye, the Tibetan communist / PRC loyalist, that the government has a responsibility to implement policies that will ensure at least a continued Tibetan majority both in Tibet overall and in Lhasa itself.
"And I repeat - If the PRC really wanted that, why would they relax the one-child policy for Tibetans?"
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent question. I think that PRC policy on Tibet is subject to a variety of competing and conflicting approaches and interests, so it can't be characterised by a single-minded intention. Tibetan exile groups might argue that there is an active plan of cultural genocide, but I think that is more propaganda than reality. That doesn't mean that there aren't some elements in the Chinese government that do want to destroy Tibet. What concerns me more is not active malice but negligence: the government has a responsibility to implement policies that will protect Tibet, and in some instances it has failed to do so. Of course, "malice" and "negligence" are not mutually exclusive; one reason that some people in the Chinese government might neglect dealing with Tibet's demographic issues is that those people people actually want to see Tibet, if not destroyed, at least softened up a bit so that it will be less of a threat/nuisance in the future.
By the way, what does Wikipedia actually say about the CIA's role in the 1959 uprising? I see that the article on the 2008 unrest refers to "the failed CIA-backed uprising in 1959". That strikes me as very tendentiously-worded, but, more importantly, it's an offhand description. Where are the details which back up the impression it creates? The article on the 1959 Tibetan uprising does contain a section called "United States involvement", but that section says nothing about any American involvement in the events of March 10. That's because there wasn't any: neither the U.S. nor the Dalai Lama initiated the popular uprising in Lhasa.
ReplyDeleteIn Dragon in the Land of Snows, Tsering Shakya, Tibet's greatest living historian, writes (pg. 170-171), "Accounts of CIA involvement in Tibet are often sensational and exaggerate the role of the CIA in the flight of the Dalai Lama from Lhasa. CIA activities remained on the periphery of Tibetan political concern. Although Chinese fear of U.S. intervention was an important factor in the Chinese perception of the situation, it must be seen in the light of the bipolar division of the world and the rhetoric of the time. It does not matter whether the CIA parachuted in a few agents or sent an entire regiment: from the Chinese point of view the American involvement in Tibet transformed the entire situation. It was no longer a question of revolt by some troublesome Tibetans but an international conspiracy to undermine the victory of the Communist Party in China." It was certainly reasonable for the Chinese leadership of the time to be wary of U.S. Cold War machinations. The problem is that this monomaniacal focus on "CIA-backed uprisings" has the effect of denying any agency to the Tibetans themselves.
"Do you really think that the relationship between California and New York is similar to the relationship between Tibet and the Chinese metropole?"
ReplyDeleteWell, it ought to.
I don't think ethnicity should be counted as a factor here. In today's modern world, we have to move above these age-old ethnic differences. We are all human beings in the end.
As for the infrastructure benefiting Han Chinese more then Tibetans, well, I can't actually understand how that happens.
Do Tibetans have to pay more fare to use railways? Do Tibetans not have an equal right to use roadways?
By the same logic, it can be argued that the development in Tibet is accelerated due to the workforce - Tibetan AS WELL AS Han, which work there. Hence, Han workers actually helped, in a way, to develop Tibet.
Now, if certain Tibetans have a prejudice against not learning the Chinese language or getting Chinese education, then they are simply making themselves less competitive and thus stand to lose from Han competition.
This sacrifice of the regional language for the national or another language has to be made in many countries, including India. Every parent here wants to put there child in an English medium school.
"That's an argument that applies equally well to international migration as to internal migration"
I don't think so. Because internal migration is much easier than international migration.
"I'm interested in hearing you give your arguments for your own opinions."
ReplyDeleteWell, when you gave the parallel of Tibetans becoming the minority in Tibet to be Indians becoming the minority in Maharashtra, then in fact that stuck me as rather ridiculous because,
a) You seem to think that Tibetans are not Chinese citizens.
b) You seem to think that Tibetans should live in Tibet only; or that Tibet should be for Tibetans only. Well, nobody is stopping Tibetans from migrating to other parts of China. Also, refer to my previous comment.
I repeat - I think that in today's day and age we should put aside these age-old ethnic differences. We are all one in the end.
ReplyDelete"Tibetan exile groups might argue that there is an active plan of cultural genocide, but I think that is more propaganda than reality"
I think so too.
Here is what the Institute of Economic Research, State Department of Planning Commission has to say:
"Analyses show that the `genocide’ myth is not supported by indirect estimates on Tibetan mortality, and the `forced birth control’ allegation lacks solid demographic foundation. On the contrary, Tibetan population has experienced an unprecedented growth since the early 1960s. Still dominant in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), Tibetans were only slightly outnumbered by non-Tibetans in other Tibetan prefectures in neighbouring provinces. However, the number of non-Tibetans transferring into ethnographic Tibet is on the rise. Instead of explicit resettlement programmes, the migration flow is triggered primarily by structural transformation and the Government’s modernisation policy. It is historic coincidence if the current policies run counter to the interest of Tibetan nationalists." (emphasis mine)
The part in bold illustrates what I said earlier, that migration is an inevitable outcome of development. In a way it can be argued that it even facilitates development, as I said before.
"That doesn't mean that there aren't some elements in the Chinese government that do want to destroy Tibet"
But it also doesn't mean that there are some elements in the Chinese government that do want to 'destroy' Tibet.
Also, when you talk about 'destroying' Tibet, what exactly do you mean - destroying Tibetan people, Tibetan environment, Tibetan culture, Tibetan religion, or something else?
As far as the Tibet-Qinghai railway line is concerned, some people think that that will be the final straw in making Tibetans the minority in Tibet. So what's the alternative then, not build any developmental infrastructure at all? (And maybe suffer what happened in India's Naxal infested regions?)
The China Journal of Social Work ( Vol 1 No. 3) says:
ReplyDelete"The communist ideology views nationality as a historical concept and believed it would disappear concomitantly with the increasing level of socialism and communism and with the eventual disappearance of classes. As implied by this ideological viewpoint, the Chinese government does not actively pursue the elimination of ethnic minorities, but allows them to develop for a long period until the economies and cultures of all nationalities become amalgamated and indistinguishable, which is the time when the phenomenon of nationality naturally disappears.
........
Additionally, Marxist theories on nationality consider all nationalities to be equal, whether the nationality is a majority or a minority.
........
It is apparent that the Chinese government has made considerable institutional and
policy arrangements in approaching issues involving ethnic minorities. Compared with the minority rights approach in Europe, which focuses on non-discrimination, the intention of China’s approach is not only to protect people from negative treatment, but promote a broad scope of positive rights, even privileges. Some policies conferring benefits on minorities are preferential treatment such that they have generated public concern that the MAJORITY is being discriminated against...."
You wrote: "one reason that some people in the Chinese government might neglect dealing with Tibet's demographic issues is that those people people actually want to see Tibet, if not destroyed, at least softened up a bit so that it will be less of a threat/nuisance in the future."
But again - that doesn't answer the basic question - why do there exist policies which actually FAVOUR Tibetans? For example,
1. The relaxation of the one child policy.
2. Reservations for Tibetans in educational institutions.
3. Concessions in entrance exams, like the Goa Kao.
4. The Constitution requires that the state cadres in the autonomous regions be selected from the local dominant ethnic minority.
.......the list goes on and on.
It wouldn't be an over-exaggeration to say that its almost as if the Chinese government WANTS Tibetans to succeed more than Han Chinese!
Consider the state of exiled Tibetans in India. For fear of losing Tibetan 'culture', the Tibetan government in exile discourages them to intermarry with non-tibetans. Many don't know English or Hindi and can't get jobs or an education. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1884187,00.html)
ReplyDeleteGod or Religion or Culture is not going to help Tibetans enjoy a higher standard of living. The government is - and does.
It might be true that some Tibetans are not satisfied with economic development, but that is largely because of lack of religious freedom (btw, I find it amusing that the western media generally talks about Chinese minorities like Uyghurs and Tibetans only in terms of religion. As if they are to be seen through the lens of religion ONLY. Its almost as if the media considers minorities to be more backward)
ReplyDeleteIN THE END, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO MORE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. THE GOVERNMENT HAS PAYED MORE ATTENTION TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAN RELIGION OR CULTURE.
IF THE GOVERNMENT SIMPLY EASED UP A BIT ON RELIGION, MANY OF ITS PROBLEMS WOULD GO AWAY. BUT SINCE IT IS COMMUNIST AND OFFICIALLY ATHEIST, IT IS DIFFICULT TO DO SO AS IT GOES AGAINST COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY.
But I think that a suitable compromise can be reached yet.
Regarding the 1959 uprising -
ReplyDeleteAs for Tsering Shakya and his statement that '...it must be seen in the light of the bipolar division of the world and the rhetoric of the time'; this is exactly what I said in an earlier comment of mine - that 1959 was a completely different geo-political setup - the Cold War was on; and both sides did what they could to undermine the other.
And even he doesn't deny that the CIA was involved in the uprising.
It is a fact that the uprising was CIA backed. Whether 'this monomaniacal focus on "CIA-backed uprisings" has the effect of denying any agency to the Tibetans themselves' is an entirely separate issue. The fact is that the uprising was CIA backed - whether one chooses to 'emphasize' it or not is a different matter. Hence, calling the uprising 'CIA backed' is a statement of fact, not a particular 'emphasis'.
And I repeat what I said earlier - If given a choice of believing either Wikipedia or you - there are no prizes for guessing what I, or most people, would choose to believe.
Maitreya,
ReplyDeleteI think we're getting mixed up based on the vagueness of "the uprising". Now, the outline of events is that there were a series of uprisings in Kham and Amdo in 1956 (maybe a few in 1955), which turned in a protected rebellion in Kham over the next few years. Then, in early March, 1959, there were a series of large protests in Lhasa which culminated in active mass resistance against the Chinese military on March 10. After then, there was a continued but somewhat quixotic guerilla war between Tibetan irregulars and the PLA for quite while. Now, you were talking about the anniversary of the uprising on March 10, so I assumed that you were referring specifically to the protests and resistance in Lhasa on that date in 1959. If that's what you mean by the "uprising", then I think it is incorrect to say "CIA-backed". Does Tsering Shakya say the CIA was involved in that? I don't think he does. Now, it's certainly true that the CIA had had some involvement with the Khampas before that, and they definitely had a heavy involvement with the guerilla movement later on, but that's not what March 10 is the anniversary of.
I meant to say, "a protracted rebellion in Kham", not "protected".
ReplyDeleteTsering Shakya doesn't mention any dates in the excerpt which you quoted. Naturally when he says that there is CIA involvement, one assumes that he is talking about the uprising as a whole.
ReplyDeleteWhen one says that the CIA backed the 1959 uprising, it is assumed that it means that the CIA backed the uprising AS A WHOLE. The uprising IN GENERAL.
In any case, for someone who is not a historian on Tibet, Wikipedia is quite an authoritative source. Here is what it says,
"The unrest began with demonstrations on March 10, 2008, the 49th anniversary of the failed CIA-backed uprising in 1959 in Tibet against Beijing's rule"
Again I repeat what I said earlier - If given a choice of believing either Wikipedia or you - there are no prizes for guessing what me, or most people, would choose.
As a matter of fact, I am surprised that you haven't edited Wikipedia already if you have evidence or references to the contrary.
I don't see how I could have made myself any more clearer in this matter.
BTW, in my earlier comment I meant 'PAID' not 'PAYED'.
I guess you could guess what the facts of the situation not stated in the quotation are. Or, you could read up a bit on the topic you have chosen to discuss, and then not have to make so many assumptions. It's not clear to me that you have actually read the Wikipedia article on the uprising, let alone any of the published material on this subject.
ReplyDeleteWell but that's my point. My blogpost was not about the 1959 uprising. Hence, I didn't choose to discuss it. You did.
ReplyDeleteYou can be assured that I will research those topics which I choose to discuss thoroughly.
I have only tangentially touched upon the topic by adding the adjective 'CIA backed' before the '1959 uprising'. Which is absolutely true.
Again, I don't see how I could have been any MORE clearer.
Maitreya,
ReplyDeleteDon't you think it is a bit pointless to take part in this strawman argument set up by Otto?
He/she insists that the CIA had absolutely no hand in those protest/rebellion on that particular day. So what? Who knows? (while Otto was there, so he knew) Does that make any substantial difference? Give him the candy.
Maitreya,
ReplyDeleteI think you should read book written by one of the CIA operation officer Roger McCarthy, he died in 2007, his book is called 'Tears of the Lotus'. I don't know whether you'll find it market anymore, but you can also read Mikel Dunnham book called 'Buddha Warrior'. These two books are based only on the CIA involvement in Khampa resistance movement.
Well as Otto said, CIA has no involvement in 1959 Tibetan National Uprising on 10th March.
Well as for Tibetan historical book I think you should refer book by Tsepon WD Shakabpa "A Political History of Tibet" and also that of Tsering Shakya's which deals with the modern Tibetan Political History.
@Bodmi
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting.
Since this article does not deal with the Tibetan uprising, I have not included its detailed history.
The fact remains that the CIA was involved in the 1959 uprising in general. Whether or not it was involved on a particular day or not is irrelevant.
Hence, since the article is not about the uprising, I've touched upon the topic only tangentially, and have said "the (2008) uprising took place on the 49th anniversary of the failed CIA backed Tibet uprising of 1959", which is also what Wikipedia says.