Today, the 2nd September is the 63rd anniversary of the officially declared day, widely known within the Tibetan exile community as Tibetan Democracy Day, Mangsto Duchen (‘Mangsto’: democracy; ‘Duchen’: occasion). It marks the founding of Tibetan democracy by the Central Tibetan government in exile (CTA), based in Dharamsala, India, which governs over 1 million Tibetan refugees globally.
On September 2, 1960, a year after thousands of Tibetans fled Tibet due to the violent Chinese communist invasion, the first elected representatives of the CTA took their oaths in Bodh Gaya to inaugurate the democratic system. In 1963, the 14th Dalai Lama enacted the Tibetan constitution based on the ideals of democracy and universal values, following which the first women representatives were elected. In 1975, Kashag, the central body of CTA, declared September 2 as the founding day of Tibetan democracy. However, it was not until 1991, that a number of additional major democratic steps were undertaken, including the direct elections of Kalons (Ministers) by the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies and the establishment of a judiciary branch. Previously Kalons were appointed directly by His Holiness.
It was not until 2001, that the first direct democratic elections were held by the Tibetan people for the post of Kalon Tripa (Senior Minister) in the history of Tibet, whose first elected leader was the Gelugpa lineage teacher, Samdhong Rinpoche. However, the political power of the 14th Dalai Lama was not transferred fully until March 14 2011, when he senr a letter to the CTA requesting them to devolve his temporal power. On May 29 2011, the 14th Dalai Lama signed into law the formal transfer of his temporal power to the democratically elected leader. This brought to an end the 368-year old tradition of the Dalai Lamas being both spiritual and temporal head of Tibet.
Today, the CTA released a public statement referring to the establishment of democracy as the ’14th Dalai Lama’s gift.’ The government in exile comprises 45 members: 10 representatives from each of the traditional provinces of Tibet, U-Tsang, Dhotoe, and Dhomey; two from each of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism; two representing each of the Tibetan communities in North America and Europe; and one each from Australasia and Asia (excluding India, Nepal and Bhutan). However, the CTA is still not officially recognised by any country, including India. In addition, the Jonang lineage is not represented, a situation which has caused concern and protests among Jonang teachers and followers.
In this short article, I briefly outline the road to modernisation and democracy from the religious theocracy in Tibet pre-1959 of the Dalai Lamas/Gelug absolute, undemocratic political power. Then briefly consider the question (often raised by critics) as to whether or not Tibetan exile democracy is fulfilling the generally accepted foundational ideals of liberal, democratic nations with freedom of speech, religion and secularism or is the Dalai Lama/Gelug hegemony/power influence still dominating religious and political institutions and cultural norms in exile.
May Tibetans in Tibet experience genuine autonomy, democracy, and freedom from suffering, persecution and oppression. Music? Tibetan National Anthem, Freedom Drill by GTashi ft K Kush, Masters of War by Bob Dylan, and Know Your Enemy by Rage Against the Machine.
Written by Adele Tomlin, 2nd September 2023.
Religious theocracy in Tibet pre-1959: the Dalai Lamas and Gelugpa governance
Before 1959, from the 17th century onwards, Tibet was a religious theocracy with absolute power held by the Dalai Lamas and the Gelugpa/Ganden lineage. As several historians and Tibetologists have written, the dominant ‘victors’ narrative about the way in which the Dalai Lama/Gelug tradition with the help of the brute force of the Mongolian military established absolute theocratical power over Tibet and other Tibetan Buddhist lineages has been one of unification, rather than domination. However, the alternative ‘oppressed’ version of the narrative, combined with serf-like existence and lack of freedom and power of ordinary Tibetans, does not fit the ‘Orientalist’, romantic notion of the Dalai Lamas and Tibetan Buddhist practice.
Despite Tibetan dislike of ‘Orientalism’, it seems many Tibetans would rather not discuss that aspect of Tibetan history, due to a legitimate fear of playing into anti- Dalai Lama Chinese government propaganda on the topic. Nonetheless, historical facts are undeniable, and increasing research and evidence is coming to light that they ruled Tibet with an ‘iron fist’ and many monasteries and texts of the other main lineages of Nyingma, Kagyu and Jonang were seized by the Ganden/Gelugpa government and never returned to their original owners.
For example, renowned Tibetology scholar Dr. Cecile Ducher wrote in her paper, Goldmine of Knowledge: The Collections of the Nechu Lhakhang in Drepung Monastery (2020) how so many texts of other lineages were sealed and found in Drepung Monastery in Tibet and only recently discovered after the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The 17th Karmapa recently spoke about how most if not all of the 8th Karmapa’s newly founded monasteries and shedras were stolen, converted or fell into ruin after the Gelugpa takeover.
Modernisers and whistleblowers such as the scholar-translator-practitioner, Gedun Chophel (1903-1951)and the writer, Tashi Tsering (author of Struggle for Modern Tibet who wrote of the cultural norm of sexual abuse of young monks in Gelug monasteries, the Dob-Dob culture) were labelled by those in power as traitors, Chinese spies, and in Chophel’s case imprisoned and treated like a common criminal. He died of ill-health after his release from prison and a couple of weeks after the first soldiers of the Chinese Peoples’ Liberation Army marched around the Barkhor in the heart of the sacred city of Lhasa.
More recently, in the 21st Century, one of the main Tibetan Buddhist lineages in exile, Jonang, who also faced severe repression by the Dalai Lama led Ganden government, with their Zhentong philosophy facing strict censure and banning of publication, held hunger strikes in front of the CTA building, which was called off after assurances by Tibetan exile politicians their demands for recognition and equality would be met. Last month a Jonang Rinpoche teacher based in Australia, launched a new campaign to Recognise Jonang, which the CTA or current Sikyong (leader), Penpa Tsering have yet to publicly respond to.
Foundation stones of liberal democracy: freedom of speech and non-sectarian secularism
A foundation and important principle of liberal democracies is secularism (non-interference or influence by religious traditions/leaders) and/or equality of treatment for all religions/views such as Buddhism, Islam, atheism etc. That means that religions are taught in schools in an objective way, not encouraging children to follow a particular religion or leader. This is still not the case in Tibetan Buddhist exile society though. Although Tibetan Buddhism is clearly an important and precious part of the tradition and history of Tibet, it is rare, and socially unacceptable, if anyone within that community does not follow that tradition. In particular, any respectful and/or reasonable critique of the Dalai Lama is met with personal attacks, defamation and isolation. As in pre-1959 Tibet, such critics are labelled Chinese spies, or anti-Dalai Lama or lacking the ability to think independently of Chinese propaganda.
The recent case this year with the Indian boy, being a prime example. Despite the 14th Dalai Lama issuing a sincere apology for his conduct, Tibetans in exile angrily took to the streets and shouted ‘shame, shame’ at the Indian media and anyone who dared to disagree with their defence that it was (and is) a cultural norm for a male adult in a position of great power and influence to pressure children (from whatever country/culture) to kiss them on the lips and suck their tongue. Many in India (and globally) disagreed with this assertion but were instantly attacked and labelled the same way, as anti-Tibetan, pro-Chinese etc. Children’s rights experts in Delhi, and other Buddhist online publications, stated that regardless of whether it was a cultural norm or not (which is debatable), it was never acceptable to pressure a child to do such a thing [1].
There is no denying the 14th Dalai Lama can only be congratulated for being a clear driving force in founding many exile schools, projects and funding opportunities for Tibetan exiles, and is seen as a spiritual leader who is seen as a beacon of hope, peace and compassion by millions of people globally. Yet, there does seem to be an unspoken fear and unwillingness, even among more independent-minded Tibetan intellectuals and writers to level any constructive criticism or examination of the history and power of the DL/Gelugpa hegemony and domination of institutions in Tibet and that continuing in exile.
The 14th Dalai Lama still assumes the over-arching power position in relation to exile institutions and schools, and even within the democratic government itself (as can be seen in the photo above). For example, the director and Buddhist Studies teaching staff at the Library of Tibetan works and Archives in Dharamsala, are all Geshes trained within the Gelug tradition/shedra. Surely, if there was a real equality between the main Tibetan Buddhist lineages, there would also be teachers employed and teaching there from the those other traditions?
Tibetan Buddhists in exile are ‘free’ to not follow or express devotion to the (much older) lineage heads of Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya and Jonang, without any issue at all. But everyone, regardless of their lineage or main teacher seems to be expected to show unquestioning allegiance, devotion and promotion of the 14th Dalai Lama and the Gelugpa lineage teachers. If they don’t they are punished with unjustified social isolation and defamation, as was Gedun Chophel. The reason for this seems to be that Tibetans still associate the Dalai Lama institution as being equivalent to Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism, even though Tibetan history and culture is much older and wider than that. Old habits die hard as they say. A young 17th Karmapa freshly escaped into exile from Tibet, alluded to this Gelug hegemony when he gave this brief speech to the 14th Dalai Lama, and other Tibetan Buddhist monks.
No doubt, some people reading this may feel triggered emotionally, and react and attack me for even daring to suggest an inherent bias and inequality within the exile democracy and institutions. For example, some labelled me as anti-Dalai Lama etc. merely for reporting on the historical accounts of the Dalai Lamas/Gelugpa in Ladakh. Such reactions made me feel weary about even writing this article and the potential backlash from it.
Nonetheless, despite the 14th Dalai Lama’s statement last month that the Chinese ‘want (or need to) speak’ to him, there has been no real movement for genuine autonomy for Tibetans in Tibet, and the Chinese government position on the Dalai Lama (and their censorship of his name and photo) seems to have intensified. Thus, the point remains, if Tibetans in exile are really serious about freedom of speech, and secular and democratic ideals (as well as gender equality) then they may have to turn that critique more inwardly as some point, and take an honest and direct look at their history, and political and spiritual leaders and institutions, and ask themselves are they genuinely democratic and secular, or is there another ‘propaganda’ being exercised by those who seek to maintain religious, patriarchal (and political) power in Tibet (and exile) coming from a source much closer to ‘home’, in their own backyard? I leave that as an open question, lest anyone wrongly accuse me of sectarian bias or being anti-Dalai Lama or a Chinese spy!
Endnotes
[1] In the unedited video, it is undeniable that the boy is seen clearly physically resisting the 14th Dalai Lama requests (at least three times) and did not comply despite the intense pressure to do so in front of his parents, and hundreds of people watching on.
Dakini Translations and Publications མཁའ་འགྲོ་མའི་ལོ་ཙཱ་བའི་འགྱུར་དང་འགྲེམས་སྤེལ། 