By Airpeace W. Rani
On February 4, 2014, the Government of Meghalaya organized an interaction with the Sikyong (prime minister in exile) of Tibet at the Convention Centre during his visit to the State. The General Administration Department (GAD) must be congratulated for this state of the art Centre. However, had the Department handled the project more efficiently it could have avoided a cost escalation of about Rs 30 crore. This is a centrally sponsored project hence the additional cost too was borne by the Central Government. The 800-seater Centre with five committee rooms, each with 20 seats looks grand and Meghalaya has reasons to be proud of this. Henceforth conferences can be held there especially when VIPs from outside the state are in attendance. I hope the government would also revamp the jaded and faded Soso Tham auditorium in like manner. I am hopeful that the Government would do a good job with the proposed Assembly building as well Among the invitees who attended the session were politicians, senior government officials, teachers, students and media persons.
The Sikyong’s talk was on ‘Democracy in Exile: The Case of Tibet. While speaking about Tibetan democracy, he said that the Tibetan democratic system is similar to the Indian political system as the Tibetan charter is influenced by and imbibes much from the Indian Constitution and Parliament. He narrated his personal and political journey from a Tibetan youth activist growing up in poverty and graduating to a Harvard scholar and finally as the Sikyong. The Sikyong pointed to the impact of ecological disturbances in the Tibetan plateau on the whole world, especially on Asia and the riparian countries that survive on Tibet’s rivers. He called Tibet the third-pole today due to its rich ice reserves. The thawing of these reserves feed the rivers of south and south-east Asia like the Indus, Satluj, Brahmaputra, Yangtze-kiang and Mekong. He also spoke about the devolution of political authority by His Holiness the Dalai Lama to an elected Tibetan leadership and the current political situation inside Tibet. He stressed on the non-violent methods of the Tibetan movement including the wave of self-immolation protests sweeping Tibet since 2009. Acknowledging the support of the Indian government and people towards the Tibetan community, the Sikyong expressed Tibet’s indebtedness to India for its help in their distress.
Leading the Tibetan movement from the political front the Sikyong highlighted that the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) adopted a middle path while trying to resolve the problems of Tibet. This means that while Tibet does not accept its present status under the Republic of China yet it does not seek separation from China either. History reveals that Tibet was never part of China and that China invaded Tibet in the 1950s. By taking a middle way approach, Tibet only seeks autonomy in religion, language, script and culture and refuses to accept China’s Communist ideology. Tibet has consistently urged China to follow a similar mechanism of ‘one country two systems’ as it did with Hong Kong and Macau.
The Sikyong’s lecture was preceded by an interesting speech from Chief Minister, Dr. Mukul Sangma who empathized with the cause and sufferings of the people of Tibet. In a sharp turn Dr Sangma lambasted politicians like Arvind Kejriwal who blew their own trumpets about their good deeds. He asserted that he had done something like Kejriwal as Deputy Chief Minister of Meghalaya by staying in his small two bedroom house in Nongrim Hills. He said his children refused to come home during holidays because they did not have enough space. Dr Sangma derided the media for giving importance to people who blew their own trumpets and urged public servants to serve the people with humility. Dr Sangma also lambasted those who advocate that only supporters of a winning candidate should get maximum benefit by way of government schemes, grants, gifts, attention etc from such a representative. All in all Dr Sangma’s speech was largely misplaced in that ambience.
The learning points from the interaction centre round how Tibetan politics is a good mix of Buddhist philosophy and western democratic ideals. They cherish the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity to the extent that they are ready to compromise sovereignty for a mere autonomy within the Republic of China. To have a parliament in exile and to follow the sovereign democratic governance without a state is difficult to imagine. Thus Tibetan democracy reflects the strong unity and cohesion of the Tibetans around the world as one nation. This shows that common sufferings and common goals can make people selfless. Self respect and self redemption is in fact the gospel of the people of Tibet. Can we in Meghalaya learn something from this gospel? We are a democracy with a territorial space of our own, blessed with numerous resources. Moreover we are also given the autonomy to define our own destiny. How have we utilized this autonomy and resources? Why should we rely on central dole for everything? If we don’t develop ourselves can we expect false prophets from outside to do so? Industrialists and investors come with a profit motive. We have to help ourselves.
For instance, what have our people benefited from the numerous cement factories established in the state? Ultimately we are only selling the raw materials at a throw away price and leasing the fertile land for toxicity. Why is education not making us question this ecological evil that’s unfolding before us? Look at the state of our education, health, roads and water supply systems. If we make bad roads, we are inflicting trouble on ourselves and our future generation. The same is the case with muddy waters supplied to our homes. Who is affected by power cuts/load shedding? It’s high time we introspects in our homes before pointing fingers at the ‘step mother’ in New Delhi.
Another striking point in the lecture was the ambience in which it was delivered. One felt as if one was in other hallowed environs such as the one seen abroad or on television. Someone in the hall asserted that he was mesmerized by the speech so much so that he forgot his pre-conceived questions. Keeping the lecture aside, it was the Speaker who caught everyone’s attention. The Sikyong, Dr Lobsang Sangay, formerly known as Kalon Tripa, the English equivalent of Prime/Chief Minister of a state was very impressive. Being a law scholar from Harvard he spoke with rare eloquence. If Plato was alive, he would have called him the philosopher-king. Alas this brings us to our backyards. What is the level of qualification and education of our representatives? Can we expect any statesmanship here, leave alone scholarship? Why can’t we have minimum qualification for our representatives? If we demand basic minimum qualification for a grade IV job, how much more for our representatives? Would that be undemocratic as it would deny the uneducated the opportunity to contest elections? What if we have a Constitutional amendment for the same? If it’s done by the House of the People for the good of the people, then it would amount to the voice of the people. Having said that, I do mean that all educated people are above wrongdoing! Some educated people are also very corrupt. Besides education, we need people with quality and a sense of service which the Sikyong proudly represents.
Sangay renounced his lucrative life in the US to lead his people. He suffered as a leader but he knows that the people of Tibet suffer much more. Can we practice a bit of renunciation while practicing leadership? Dr. Sangay said that as a Sikyong he was not elected to power but given the responsibility to work for the cause of Tibet. What do we do here in Meghalaya? Why are MLAs and MDCs becoming distributors of schemes and grants? We don’t want to see debate- winning and scam- defending champions in our country but tangible works done. To serve the people with humility is the bottom-line of the Tibetan leader. Dr. Mukul Sangma also harped on it as a devout devotee. India is a secular country but my fear is that we are paying God by robbing from our fellow countrymen. The lecture was rich in content. I wish we had such excellent speakers to address us from time to time