Articles

  • Setting the Record Straight By North America Chithue Candidate Tashi Namgyal I am glad that Tibetan Political Review has come out with an editorial on the North American Chithue race and in particular focused ...
    Posted Feb 4, 2016, 1:03 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Tyranny of the Tibetan Majority By Kaysang Our exile system of government claims to be a democracy, but recent events have proven it to be quite the opposite. Yes, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has ...
    Posted Jan 5, 2016, 6:16 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Will Tibetans in Exile Accept ‘Democracy with Tibetan Refugee Characteristics’? Cartoon by Tenzin Dorjee (Tendor) -- Article by Neil Steedman    This article has been written for publication in German in ‘Tibet und Buddhismus’ issue 113/2015, to be distributed on 22nd ...
    Posted Dec 1, 2015, 6:00 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • An Open Letter by 52 Individual Tibetans to the Election Commission of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile   An open letter to the Election Commission of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile by 52 individual Tibetans living in various countries, including US, Switzerland, France, Nepal, Belgium and India. The ...
    Posted Nov 29, 2015, 7:53 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Open Letter from TNC to Election Commission, 20 Nov. 2015 [Tibetan version below] November 20th, 2015 Dear Mr. Chief Election Commissioner Sonam Choephel Shosur la: As you know, on August 26, 2015, I wrote to the Election Commission (EC) on ...
    Posted Dec 1, 2015, 5:46 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • REFUGEE: Rights & Issue of Deportation under Indian Legal System By Tenzin Tsering REFUGEE: Rights & Issue of Deportation under Indian Legal System Introduction - During my recent visit to Dharamsala District Court to appear for Mr. Phuntsok case (a young TVC ...
    Posted Nov 21, 2015, 4:09 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • ‘Arbitrary’ dance of Tibetan democracy By Tashi Shitsetsang The preliminary elections of the Sikyong (Tibetan Political leader) and members of the 16th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile recently took place across the globe. I felt very ...
    Posted Nov 9, 2015, 6:59 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Tibetan Election Commission says cannot implement all recommendations Excerpt from TibetExpress.net Tibetan Election Commissioner and Assistant Election Commissioners"TE : In the previous election for Kalon Tripa, there were six candidates in the preliminary round and the then ...
    Posted Nov 9, 2015, 6:50 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Clarification to group of Tibet supporters who expressed concerns about the Tibetan election process   By Tibetan Election Commission We would like to express our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to the Tibet supporters for their continued concern for the Tibetan cause. However, we would like ...
    Posted Oct 29, 2015, 11:14 AM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Announcement Regarding Final Candidates for 2016 Tibetan General Election   By Tibetan Election Commission (Oct. 20, 2015)DHARAMSHALA: The Election Commission (EC) of the Central Tibetan Administration on 19 October issued a circular announcing the number of candidates that would ...
    Posted Oct 29, 2015, 11:09 AM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Missed Opportunities   By Sonam Dorjee Missed Opportunities for the 2016 Sikyong Candidate Lukar Jam to Shore Up Support from the So-Called Moderate Tibetans Lukar Jam’s courting of unnecessary controversies such ...
    Posted Oct 15, 2015, 9:31 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Allegations Against Lukar Jam Unfounded   By Ogyen K. Gchenpa   With exile election fever being unprecedentedly high, our tiny community has gone abuzz. Politically charged Tibetans are filling wherever possible with political discussions. Such exceptional show ...
    Posted Oct 15, 2015, 9:24 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • The last attempt to dismantle universal justice in Spain   By José Elías Esteve Moltó (University of Valencia, Institute of Human Rights) The Supreme Court's ruling 296/2015 and the return to pre-Nuremberg days ...
    Posted Oct 13, 2015, 9:14 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • An Open Letter to the Sikyong, Kashag and Election Commissioner of the CTA   (October 2015) - We, the undersigned 27 long-time Tibet Supporters, are writing to you to express our concern about several recent events relating to the current Tibetan Election processes. His ...
    Posted Oct 12, 2015, 8:15 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • The intention behind changing "nationality" into "ethnic group"   By Woeser (April 1, 2015) A propaganda poster that was widely circulated throughout Tibet. The caption reads: “Tibetans and Chinese are the daughters of one and the same mother, her ...
    Posted Oct 10, 2015, 8:05 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Freedom of Speech and Right to Information   By Tenzin Tsering (Delhi, India) In 1960 His Holiness the Dalai Lama declared democracy for Tibetans and subsequently, in 1963 based on the principles of modern democracy the His Holiness ...
    Posted Oct 7, 2015, 8:20 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • An Exile Within Exile: the Specter of Lukar Jam   By Tenzin Dorjee To say that Tibetan exiles live in a small world would be an understatement. Ours is a world where any two people chosen at random are bound ...
    Posted Oct 6, 2015, 8:52 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Lukar Jam: Prisoner of Conscience   By Jamyang Norbu (Oct. 3, 2015)  Some exile Tibetans are angry with Sikyong candidate Lukar Jam Atsok for criticizing HH’s policies.  He has not only been attacked in speech ...
    Posted Oct 5, 2015, 7:58 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • A Personal Thought on Upcoming Exile Tibetan General Elections   By Ponteng Thinley Dhondup (New Delhi) IntroductionOur democracy was presented to us by H.H The Dalai Lama when our nation was plundered by People’s Liberation Army (PLA ...
    Posted Oct 3, 2015, 12:14 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • An Absence of a Female Sikyong Candidate in 2016 Election is Apparent   By Sonam Dorjee, Toronto It is incredible to have read many thoughtful write-ups on the 2016 Sikyong election and its candidates from all spectrums of ideological thinking in the ...
    Posted Oct 1, 2015, 8:38 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Do We Have a Candidate with a Third Option?   By Ngawang Choechen  The core policy of Sikyong (Prime Minister) and Chitues (Representatives) should be finding a solution to the Tibetan issue: Ume Lam (middle way approach) or Rangzen (independence ...
    Posted Sep 30, 2015, 7:57 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Manifesto of Lukar Jam Atsock   By Lukar Jam Atsock (Sikyong Candidate) On The Title of "CTA"f I am elected Sikyong, I will make serious efforts to reinstitute the title Tibetan Government in Exile. I ...
    Posted Sep 28, 2015, 8:09 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • China needs to grant genuine autonomy to the Tibetan people   By Asahi Shimbun Editorial (Sept. 23, 2015) Occupying the highlands of western China at an average elevation of 4,000 meters, Tibet marked the 50th anniversary of the foundation of ...
    Posted Sep 27, 2015, 8:39 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • It's Time for Obama to Confront Xi on Tibet & Human Rights   By Lhadon Tethong (Tibet Action Institute) Sept. 13, 2015 Chinese President Xi Jinping will be in the U.S. for his first official state visit later this month. As President ...
    Posted Sep 22, 2015, 9:00 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Why Lukar Jam Atsok is important for Tibetan democracy   By Tenzing Sonam For the sake of honouring the Snowland And to win Tibet’s complete independence Based on the manifold truth Raise the Tibetan flag, children of the Snowland ...
    Posted Sep 18, 2015, 8:35 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • "I can be the people's Sikyong:" Penpa Tsering Sikyong Candidate   By Molly Lortie, Tibet Post International (Aug.25, 2015)  "I can be the people's Sikyong," said Penpa Tsering Sikyong Candidate during an Exclusive Interview with the Tibet Post International ...
    Posted Sep 18, 2015, 8:18 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • CTA's Response to China's September 2015 White Paper on Tibet   By the Central Tibetan Administration  China’s Claim of Successful Implementation of Regional Autonomy in Tibet Falls Short of Ground Reality September 10, 2015 On 6 September, the Peoples Republic ...
    Posted Sep 17, 2015, 8:43 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • 10 reasons you should vote for Lukar Jam Atsok   By Lhakpa (Kentucky, USA) Circulating on the internet and campaign stops is a rather exaggerated and repetitive list called 'The 10 Outstanding accomplishments' of Sikyong Lobsang Sangay. This seems to ...
    Posted Sep 17, 2015, 8:43 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • Issues & Challenges for the Tibetan Diaspora Community in North America   By Sonam Dorjee (Toronto)  The following thoughts highlighting issues and challenges faced by North American Tibetans are timely to have discussed now with the Tibetan general elections to choose the ...
    Posted Sep 15, 2015, 9:08 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
  • A Tibetan Blogger Writes on Nationalism   By Lag, published in English by High Peaks Pure Earth (August 27, 2015)  High Peaks Pure Earth presents the English translation of an online essay on the subject of nationalism ...
    Posted Sep 14, 2015, 7:58 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
Showing posts 1 - 30 of 810. View more »

Setting the Record Straight

posted Feb 4, 2016, 1:01 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Feb 4, 2016, 1:03 PM ]


By North America Chithue Candidate Tashi Namgyal 


I am glad that Tibetan Political Review has come out with an editorial on the North American Chithue race and in particular focused on the individual Chithue Candidates. I have had a respect for your attempt to draw attention to Tibetan democracy, whether or not I agree with some of your assertions. Therefore, I welcome this latest editorial even though it would have added to the value had you been more thorough in your research. 

I appreciate the fact that you have tried to analyze my performance during my current term of Chithue. However, your not contacting me beforehand for information about what I had really been doing in connection with the organization of the North American Tibetan Tenshug or the background to my raising the issue of the portrait in the Office of Tibet in Washington, D.C. has led to a superficial study rather than a considered one.

I do not want to go into detailed clarification, but suffice it to say that had you spoken to any member of the organizing committee, of which I was one of the co-chairs, they would have told you what each of us did in the successful hosting of the events. For that matter more than two years back the two chithues also co-chaired the organizing of the “Flame of Truth” rally in North America.

In terms of the Office of Tibet portrait issue, had you read or watched the proceedings of the Tibetan Parliament session where I raised this issue, and had you spoken with me (or for that matter, the Representative at the Office of Tibet) before passing judgement, you would have known the facts better. I would also add that what you seem to project as “trivial” is from the Tibetan society’s perspective quite significant.

In general, I am proud to say that I have been able to make some contribution during my term.

I worked hard within the parliament and outside of it to address various issues and concerns that the North American Tibetan community had with the green book. Subsequently, if you had noticed, last year the Paljor Kalon visited North America and provided relief to quite many people who were able to acquire the green books.

I have strongly advocated for strengthening and cementing the relationship between Central Tibetan Administration and Tibetan diaspora around the world. This resulted in setting up a Chithue Committee to study the situation and a resolution in the parliament advising the Administration to look into the issue. This will have a far reaching implication for the community at large. I plan to continue this task if I am re-elected.

I have not hesitated to raise issues that concerns the security for the person of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in parliament and outside from the Dolgyal group. If you understand Tibetan society, this is very important to all of us.

I also played active role in formalizing the standardization of teaching of Tibetan language in our Weekend Tibetan Language and Cultural classes and actively involved Department of Tibetan education in the making of teaching curriculums.

In terms of man-hour, I spent over 250 days in the last four and half years for community-related activities, including attending the Parliament Session in Dharamsala. As for the development in New York on March 10 last year and your charge that I did nothing, had you contacted me about what I did or had you done some research you would have a better picture.

On the actual day, both the Sherik Kalon and I were there and the emotions were charged. Soon thereafter, various folks were taking to social media to discredit each other, I made a statement to express my dismay and sadness at the happening and asked all concerned for restraint.

Simultaneously, I contacted the Representative at the Office of Tibet and my Chithue colleague suggesting that a meeting be convened for all concerned to discuss issues. When such a meeting was fixed on April 2, 2015, I traveled to New York despite my health issues then and we (the Representative and two Chithues) met with representative of six groups along with. Thus, those concerned would have known that I have contributed very positively to bring about a rapprochement.

Overall, the two Chithues work as a team on number of issues and in particular to carry out tasks in North America. We have visited all the Tibetan cluster sites and had meaningful interaction with the community including SFT, TYC and other Tibetan groups. So irrespective of my own personal position on the future of Tibet, I have and will continue to reach out and interact with all sections of the community, whether in terms of generational or ideological differences; inclusive of all concerned.

In passing I would like to mention here that I have met with the senior advisors of the Special Tibetan Coordinator at the US Statement department, Indian Ambassador in Washington DC and the US Ambassador in New Delhi, Members of Canadian Tibetan Parliament group, Governor of Washington State and other members of the Congress.

In our democracy, the media should certainly be the watchdog so that the politicians do not violate rules or fulfil their promises. At the same time, it is essential that whatever is written in Tibetan Political Review should be done with consideration, responsibility and with efforts to get the whole picture. Otherwise, it will only result in confusing the community while affecting the credibility of your website.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my view points.




Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 
 

Tyranny of the Tibetan Majority

posted Jan 5, 2016, 6:09 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Jan 5, 2016, 6:16 PM ]





By Kaysang 

Our exile system of government claims to be a democracy, but recent events have proven it to be quite the opposite. Yes, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has brought about a fundamental change in the system of government, transitioning from a theocracy to a parliamentary theocracy, to one that he hoped, after the devolvement of his political power, would become a truly democratic one.

The truth is that we have failed to make his vision of a democratic and pluralistic exile community a living reality. We have been holding elections for our 
chithues for decades and this is the third katri/sikyong election to take place. There have been a great many changes and I think public participation in the elections this time around has been much higher than previously seen, probably due to social media and the easy access to information it gives people seeking and disseminating it. To the untrained eye, it would appear that the Tibetan political environment has started to resemble more the democracy that we aspire to.  As a participant in our so-called ‘democracy’ and someone who was brought up in this exile system being taught that we were ‘awarded’ democracy, that our society was really a democratic one, I couldn’t help but have certain expectations and believe certain things about our “mangtsoe chitsok”.  My faith in the system was eventually shattered as my exposure developed and I began to acquire the ability to think critically about these issues (one that our education system neither teaches nor encourages).

Due to the ongoing conflicts and controversies within the exile polity, I have been forced to question whether our people truly understand the meaning of democracy. Do we recognize democracy as merely the right to vote for a leader of our choice? Will we embrace a multi-party democracy and accept vocal opposition to the majority? Does it mean just the rule of the majority as we are so used to thinking, as evidenced by the tagline so common in our own personal interactions within a group of friends, where we put things to a vote when making mundane decisions, like which restaurant to go to for dinner
: ‘mangtso rey, mangwa doepa ghari yoepa jheya rey’ (it is democracy, we should do what the majority wishes to)? Do we recognize the importance of the protection of minorities of all kinds, be it religious, racial or political? Do we agree that a democracy should guarantee its people a safe space to exercise the right to have extremely conflicting views from each other? Will the Tibetan elite political establishment accept pro-Rangzen leaders and advocates within the halls of government?

When the current Sikyong took office in August 2011, I remember the kind of excitement and hope that he generated, especially among the youth, and despite my personal misgivings about him, I had to admit that the election of a secular Sikyong seemed to be quite a positive step towards democracy.

The recent string of disasters engineered by the administration proves to us that we are still deeply mired in exclusionary, non-democratic politics. And yet Sangay has the galls to encourage Tibetans and Tibetan support groups to highlight Tibetan democracy on the world stage, holding it up almost as a near-perfect epitome of a success, even juxtaposing our system against that of Egypt under Mubarak (during the opening address of the Asia Regional Meeting of International Tibet Network this year). To use his own example, “The Egyptians say that they have the freedom to vote but Mubarak has the freedom to count as he wishes.” There is but a tiny difference between our systems then. And when confronted about the absurdity of his statements in the face of the recent elections and the administration’s knack for making extremely inflammatory statements against those who do not comply with everything that CTA deems appropriate (the most recent being Kashag’s 10
th December statement against “crazy” talk by people criticizing His Holiness), Sangay told us a couple of children’s stories to fill up 3 minutes with absolute non-answers and then later stopped on his way out to ask me if I was not satisfied with his answer.

If we put it to a poll, probably a hundred percent of the exile population would say that they believe everyone should have the right to the freedom of speech, belief and expression as long as your words, beliefs and actions do not harm others. That is what we grew up learning. What we have actually seen in practice in our society, however, goes against that very belief. Differences in thought and conflict in opinion are only natural in any society and, in a democracy, a characteristic that makes up for the essence of it; but 
we have managed so successfully to foster homogeneity of thought, language, customs, religion and politics in our community that we are now walking dangerously close to the edge of a cliff called intolerance beyond which lies only “tyranny of the majority” (Tocqueville). The uniform narrative of Tibet and the Tibetan identity has been so successfully fed to and adopted by the Tibetan public and the world at large that any diversion from that common narrative is seen as not being Tibetan at all.

An increasingly huge part of this narrative is being played now by conformation with the policy of seeking genuine autonomy under China, a Middle Way proposed by His Holiness and spun in such a way by politicians that rather than choosing to follow a political ideology that agreed with their own conscience and one that they could decide upon critically by themselves, it became a choice about following our 
tsawe lama no matter what. This can be evidenced most clearly by the fact that a “unanimous resolution” was adopted by the Members of Parliament on 18th September, 1997:


“An Excerpt from the Official Resolution No. 12/4/97/46 Passed by the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies:
Be it unanimously Resolved that-
        …suggestions were solicited from all the Tibetan people, within and without Tibet, on the procedure and options of the referendum from 2 September 1995 to 31 July 1997. Based on the overwhelming majority of the suggestions received, the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies implores His Holiness the Dalai Lama to withdraw his call for a referendum, and use his wisdom to decide from time to time the future cause of Tibet and the means to achieve that;”


There was no referendum at all. The people chose to give up their political agency, choosing instead to let their spiritual belief in our leader decide the political future of Tibet.  

One cannot help but raise a few questions. Whose “suggestions were solicited”? How far-reaching was the poll within Tibet, since the Tibetan population outside Tibet is believed to be less than 5% of the total? How many people exactly is the “overwhelming majority”? What about those who did not wish to give up Rangzen personally? This happened around 20 years ago. What would the “overwhelming majority” say now? How many youth were consulted at the time? What about the aspirations of all the people like me who were too young at the time to understand politics but have grown up now and are starting to take more responsibility in the movement? What does the “overwhelming majority” inside Tibet feel now, especially after the events following 2008 and the huge changes in political climate that it brought about in their hearts? These are questions that the people in positions of authority in the CTA must answer.

These questions become even more important in the face of blatant suppression of plurality of politics, religion and thought in our community.

Rangzen advocates have been persecuted socially for years. An Indian friend of mine had an Amala she didn’t even know yell at her to stop putting her nose in our business because she had allegedly seen my friend at events organized by pro-Rangzen groups. I myself have personally had people on numerous occasions remark derisively, ‘So you’re saying that you’re going to get back our independence’ (‘Tah kherang rangzen lenki yin lapki yoe repa’) just because I had volunteered for Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) throughout high school and college.  These might be just the smallest kinds of examples I can give, but these things have the power to have a profound effect on one when repeated for days on end for years and years. The scariest thing to realize though is that these are the effects of conscious, concentrated efforts by politicians who abuse His Holiness’s name and actually strive to either change public opinion by stressing upon the ‘wishes of His Holiness’ over and over again during official functions and in their speeches, or to change the pro-Rangzen organizations in exile from the inside out. But would His Holiness really wish his name to be used as the biggest weapon in the oppression of those with different political and religious views?

Personally, I do not subscribe to either. I believe that the policy of 
Umay-lam makes sense when you think of pragmatism in maintaining diplomatic relationships, but that Rangzen organizations are instrumental in keeping the Tibetan movement alive, in rejecting Beijing’s legitimacy and hopefully gaining us leverage one day soon through successful campaigns to actually bring the Chinese to the table for negotiations. This actually helps the official policy of the Tibetan government, who themselves have failed to devise practical plans both on how to gain a little bit of an upper hand on the processes of dialogue and on how to attract the large population of Tibetan youth to this core official policy. Going around settlements and boarding schools just to indoctrinate students is not going to work. The call for Rangzen is deemed to be radical and foolish and treated as going against the principles of nonviolence that the Tibetan movement is known for. The irony lies in the fact that activists working for Rangzen have always been the ones who have actively looked for solutions to our problems; they’re the ones who have actually studied nonviolent direct action, read countless books and applied it practically by setting up an institute, training the youth in nonviolent resistance (through programs like the Lhakar Academy, in which I took part, where no one tries to brainwash people – in fact, they don’t even talk about ideology), enabling people to use this training in organizing campaigns against the Chinese government and empowering Tibetans with knowledge on digital security. Many in higher positions of power in the CTA are merely using nonviolence to not do anything concrete when it comes to pushing the movement forward and keeping it from dying. For them, nonviolence seems to be synonymous with non-action. We are political refugees, a people whose country is being strangled to death by China. It is not just enough that CTA is taking care of those in exile; they also need to look at ways to first enable themselves to negotiate politically and actively involve the youth.

Most importantly, I see the enormous potential for growth that our movement has if we could – impossible though it seems right now – remember that the less than 5% population fighting over ideology does not really serve our ultimate goal: to relieve the suffering of the Tibetans inside Tibet who are living a life that we cannot even begin to imagine. I think it would bring amazing results if the CTA could put aside their fear of antagonizing the Chinese and find a way to work with pro-Rangzen organizations on bigger collaborative campaigns.  

It is entirely possible that my views are indicative of my tendency to look at the positive in everything in life (some might even call it naïveté). After all, I am no expert in politics. But one thing I can be sure of is that our society is being polarized to such an extent by self-serving politicians and self-appointed protectors of the common good of the Tibetan people in the name of ‘respecting the Dalai Lama’s wishes’ and ‘unity’ that I am scared to speak up even for more tolerance in our community lest I be labeled a radical as well, which has actually already happened (I have been called Lukar Jam’s ‘aptuk’ several times, ‘jokingly’). The proponents of
Umay-lam seem to be missing the whole point of the concept of the Middle Way on which it was based and Rangzen advocates are convinced that their way is the only way. Yet both sides seem to be forgetting that this is the kind of ideological debate that is so complicated and multi-layered that one or the other would never triumph over the other in the foreseeable future.

The writer is a graduate in literature from Delhi University, and currently resides in Dharamsala. 



Originally published at: http://www.tibetanfeministcollective.org/2016/01/02/tyranny-of-the-tibetan-majority/



Share on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Etc.


Facebook Twitter Google+ Email Addthis




Will Tibetans in Exile Accept ‘Democracy with Tibetan Refugee Characteristics’?

posted Dec 1, 2015, 5:51 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Dec 1, 2015, 6:00 PM ]



Cartoon by Tenzin Dorjee (Tendor)


--

Article by Neil Steedman
  

This article has been written for publication in German in ‘Tibet und Buddhismus’ issue 113/2015, to be distributed on 22nd December.

* * *

‘Tibet und Buddhismus’ (‘TiBu’) asked Neil Steedman, one of the 27 Tibet Supporter signatories of an Open Letter sent in October to the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), to summarise his view of the responses to date.

I begin by answering TiBu’s request in brief: as expected, little or no meaningful response was received from the CTA; a significant number of negative and thoughtless responses were expected from some Tibetans – but only one was received; substantial and thoughtful responses were hoped for from the wider Tibetan community – and several have already appeared and they seem to be increasing.

CTA Response

The Open Letter was emailed on 13th October to the Sikyong, Kashag and Election Commission in Dharamsala and the points made included the following:

  • We believe that every Tibetan has the right to hold and express their view as to the future of Tibet.

  • The Tibetan Election Commission has recently issued rules that constrain the right to free speech and association of organisations and individuals during the upcoming exile Tibetan elections.

  • The Election Commission has abrogated its obligation to decide – before the Preliminary vote – how many of the top vote-earning candidates in the Preliminary vote for the position of Sikyong will be allowed to stand in the Final vote, thus opening the structuring of the Final vote roster to the possibility of behind-the-scenes manipulation for political purposes.

  • By providing means for incumbents to silence opponents before the polls open and to arbitrarily and retroactively make decisions on key rules, the Central Tibetan Administration risks becoming regarded by its people, the host nation of India, its international support base, and the international community, as an undemocratic body unworthy of trust.  Even more seriously, such practices leave open the possibility of CTA posts being taken by people who become unaccountable to a free and fair popular vote and therefore able to act without the approval – or even against the will – of the Tibetan people.

  • The continuing support for the Tibetan cause by ourselves and many others worldwide is, partly but significantly, based on the Central Tibetan Administration honouring both the spirit and practice of His Holiness’s efforts to implement true democracy in the Tibetan polity, signified by an irreproachable public trust in free, fair, non-partisan election processes.  We urge you to make early (i.e. before the Preliminary election) positive responses to all our concerns outlined above.

 
No direct reply was received from any of the three recipients.  However, on 27th October an anonymous “staff writer” published an alleged “Clarification” response on Tibet.net (see display panel [below]).

TiBu readers can judge for themselves whether this “clarified” anything or, indeed, adequately addressed the eight substantive issues that were set out in the Open Letter (see www.tibet.org for the full text).  In my view, it did neither.

Furthermore, the penultimate paragraph asked for “understanding that…a refugee community…cannot be compared to…democratic independent countries”.  Oh really?  So Tibetans in exile can’t expect or demand that their Government adopts the best democratic principles and procedures – perhaps ones even better than those adopted by “democratic independent countries”?

It is a minor point, but just for the record the final paragraph is (to put it politely) incorrect.  We did write directly to “the concerned office” (all three of them), whereas “staff writer” did not write to us directly but chose instead to take recourse to another channel, Tibet.net.  Or is this paragraph code for: “Please only raise serious issues in private and don’t keep the Tibetan people informed”?

The current administration’s blatant attempts to silence opinions that they don’t like and the Election Commission’s publication of eligibility rules for final Sikyong candidates on 19th October, the day after the preliminary election had taken place, speak for themselves and are, to put it bluntly, shameful.

One Negative Response

I was genuinely surprised that our Open Letter only received one negative response from a Tibetan, who emailed: “We, Tibetan, must find out who is making this up. If these people whose names in this article are true, they must show their signatures, and explain further more in detail.  Far as my concerned, they do not have right sticking their noses in our politic.  My simple massage is back off, and any false statement is crime against humanity, justice and rule of any society.  We also considered this kind of letter is wild and irresponsible, and not acceptable for any society.”

This was a classic case of: “If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger” and failed to address the substantive issues.  Also, does he/she seriously think that anyone would send and publish such a letter without the approval of the 27 signatories?

Normally I would agree with his/her view that non-Tibetans should not “stick their noses” into Tibetan politics.  Indeed, for the past 27 years I have consistently and frequently argued that non-Tibetans should only support self-determination and not any particular solution, be that ‘independence’, ‘genuine autonomy’, the ‘middle way’, ‘partial autonomy’, ‘complete assimilation into the PRC’, or any other of the many self-determination possibilities (and I have sometimes been criticised for doing so).

However, there comes a time when best friends must tell someone that they are behaving badly – and those 27 ‘best friends’ have, between them, given some 500 years of support to the Tibetan cause and to the CTA.

Many Positive Responses

Most encouragingly, many Tibetans expressed their appreciation of our Open Letter.  For example, one US-based Tibetan emailed: “Thanks to all the TSG signatories for taking this initiative” and asked if we had received a response from the concerned authorities.  I replied: “Our Open Letter is a small pebble into a large pond.  The result may be small, short-lived ripples or, IF Tibetans so choose, they may become large, long-lived waves.”

There have been several thoughtful responses from Tibetans – two coming from the TCHRD.  On 19th October, Associated Press published a report by Ashwini Bhatia that included: It’s just the second time Tibetans are voting since the Dalai Lama stepped down as head of the government-in-exile in 2011 to focus on his role as Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader.  “He wants us to stand on our own feet and decide about the future of Tibet,” said Tsering Tsomo, who heads the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Dharmsala.  Tsering Tsomo noted that Tibetan democracy was still developing.  “We have the institution, but not the culture,” she said.

Tsering-la is absolutely spot on!  Thanks mainly to the ceaseless efforts of His Holiness, a Tibetan democratic institution is now in place.  However, despite his best efforts to encourage Tibetans to “stand on their own feet”, and to have the right to hold and freely express their own opinions (a basic requirement of any real democracy), it seems that such a culture has yet to develop.  Spiritual devotion to His Holiness is still regarded by many as being synonymous with having to agree with everything he says, even though he supports the separation of ‘church and state’.

On 21st October a report in Phayul by Tenzin Dharpo on the preliminary voting results included: Tenzin Nyinjey, a researcher with the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy said, “I can’t say it’s deliberate, but keeping Lukar Jam out, that’s what the amended rules have done, is a blow to democracy.  Because, without him and his arguments for independence, there shall be no serious debate in the finals, since both likely candidates – Lobsang Sangay and Penpa Tsering – are middle pathists.  Moreover, the fact that election commission in 2011 allowed the third candidate – Tashi Wangdi, a middle pathist in the previous Katri election, makes me wonder if the reason for keeping out Lukar was due to his political stand.  After all, in 2011 the margin of votes between Tashi Wangdi and Tenzin Tethong was a lot more than 20 percent.”

Tenzin Nyinjey-la is also spot on.  It seems that, for the current CTA leadership, dialogue or negotiations with Chinese Government oppressors are OK, but respect for (or debates with) Tibetans holding alternative views are not.

On 7th November, in Tibet Express, Tashi Shitsetsang-la published an exceptionally good article, 'Arbitrary’ Dance of Tibetan Democracy, which included:  On October 19, the EC issued a circular announcing the number of candidates to be shortlisted for the final round of the Tibetan elections.  Article 67 of the electoral rules and regulations says that the EC will not shortlist less than two Sikyong candidates for the final election.  In the circular, the EC added: “However, if the vote margin between the second and third candidate is less than 20% in the preliminary election, three candidates shall be shortlisted for the final Sikyong election.”  This incomprehensible new rule was not a real surprise given the fact that the EC kept quiet about the number of Sikyong candidates in the final round for a long time.  As part of the Europe tour, the CEC held a public talk in Switzerland on October 3 which I attended.  The main goal of this tour was to raise awareness about the elections and their procedure.  During the Q&A session, one of the attendees inquired whether the number of candidates for the final Sikyong round would be announced before or after the preliminaries and, if it’s announced after the preliminary election, why that would be so.  Sonam Choephel Shosur, as I predicted, had no straightforward answer to these questions.  He explained that there would be six Sikyong candidates for the preliminary elections but he did not mention a single word about the number of Sikyong candidates to be shortlisted for the final round.  Instead, in a bid to circumvent the specific question regarding the Sikyong candidates, he said: ‘If there were ten Chitue seats, there would be 20 Chitue candidates for the final round.’  At that point I knew that issues like transparency and honesty did not matter much to the EC.  I felt that, even as the first round of elections was nearing, they were still trying to fool us.

On 13th November, Jamyang Norbu-la posted ‘Election by Divine Intervention’ on his blog Shadow Tibet, which included: The [Tibetan Election Commission] appears to have outdone itself in incompetence (or deviousness?) in the latest Tibetan Sikyong elections.  These are two-stage elections, and the first polling was held on Sunday 18th October of this year… On Tuesday, the 20th of October, two days after the polls had closed the EC announced on Tibet.net (the official CTA website) that a new rule had been enacted whereby the second and final stage ballot would be limited to just two candidates, unless the third candidate came within 20% of the vote total of the second candidate… An American lawyer friend noted “…this decision by the Tibetan EC — made two days after the vote — would make the election process so arbitrary as to be illegitimate.”

Two Open Letters have also been published on Khabdha.org, one signed by 52 Tibetans in eight countries, the other by 124 Tibetans mostly from New York – both generating numerous commentaries.  I do not read Tibetan, but I am told that these letters take approaches similar to, but more critical than, our own Open Letter.

TiBu has also asked Tsewang Norbu-la to write an article about the post-election atmosphere within the Tibetan diaspora, so I look forward to reading his article.

Short-lived Ripples or Long-lasting Waves?

Will such contributions from Tibetans generate a healthy debate within the Tibetan community as to what are appropriate rules and procedures for their developing democracy?  In short, will the result of our Open Letter be short-lived ripples or long-lasting waves?  That will be entirely up to the Tibetan community.

Either this generation is willing to accept the ‘democracy with Tibetan refugee characteristics’ now created by the current administration, or they will demand rules and procedures that are transparent and honest and which respect divergent opinions – and thereby truly respect and honour the democratic vision of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.


Clarification to the group of Tibet Supporters who have expressed concerns about the Tibetan Election Process in the media dated 13 October 2015


(Posted on Tibet.net by “Staff Writer” on 27th October 2015)

We would like to express our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to the Tibet supporters for their continued concern for the Tibetan cause. However, we would like to make the following brief clarifications to the group of Tibet supporters who have expressed their concerns about the implementation of the CTA’s electoral rules and regulations.

The Election Commission has implemented the electoral rules adopted by the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, especially Article 24 of the electoral rules, with utmost transparency. Section 9 of the article states, “During the elections of Sikyong and members of the Tibetan Parliament, the election commission should give clear directives as to the candidates, affix expenses limit by their supporters for campaigning, budgets and decorum of campaigning.” These directives of the election commission doesn’t in any way infringe on the right to free speech, association and campaign rights of any candidate, nor does it contravene any international human rights laws.

The Election Commission of the Central Tibetan Administration doesn’t have the authority to approve organisations in any of its statutes. The commission recognises the eleven organisations on the basis of their having been approved by the Kashag and the Tibetan Parliament before. Therefore, we hope that you will understand that we have not made any arbitrary and ad hoc decisions.

The duty of the Election Commission is to issue directives on the electoral rules and regulations, and to adjudicate in case of its violation. However, it doesn’t take suo moto cognizance, as is the norm in any function of law.

We would further seek your understanding that the rules and regulations of the Central Tibetan Administration are formulated on the basis of a refugee community, which cannot be compared to the laws of democratic independent countries.

In the future, if there are any opinions on the subject, do directly contact the concerned office instead of taking recourse to other channels.

Election Commission
26 October 2015




________________________________

Share on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Etc.

Facebook Twitter Email Google+ Addthis

 



An Open Letter by 52 Individual Tibetans to the Election Commission of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile

posted Nov 29, 2015, 7:53 PM by The Tibetan Political Review

 

Image result for vote fraud


An open letter to the Election Commission of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile by 52 individual Tibetans living in various countries, including US, Switzerland, France, Nepal, Belgium and India.

The letter contains Seven Notes and Eighteen Questions the EC on issues arising from a set of new rules that the Election Commission issued in June and more importantly a new rule issued on 19 October 2015, a day after the preliminary voting took place, regarding the selection of Sikyong candidates for final voting in March 2016. 

Citing various Articles and Clauses from the Charter for Tibetans-in-Exile on the power of Election Commission and election procedures, the open letter asks the EC to provide clarifications on their 18 questions. 

The letter also states that if the independent body such as EC does not follow rule of law then it not only sets a bad precedent for Tibetan democracy following His Holiness’s devolution of political powers but can also lead to rule by the people in power and authority in future.   

*************

The above is a summary translation of the original open letter (as below) written in Tibetan and posted on www.khabdha.org on November 16, 2015.



*******************************************************************************
དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ལ་ཕུལ་བའི་ཞུ་གཏུག་སྙན་ཞུ་གནས་ཚུལ་༧ དང་། དོགས་འདྲི་༡༨

དབུས་བོད་མིའི་སྒྲིག་འཛུགས་ཀྱི་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་གི་འགན་འཛིན་ལྷན་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་མདུན་སར།

ཆེད་ཞུ། དགོངས་མངའ་བཞིན་ད་ལྟ་དབུས་བོད་མིའི་སྒྲིག་འཛུགས་ཀྱི་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་དང་། སྤྱི་འཐུས་འོས་བསྡུའི་ལས་རིམ་འགྲོ་བཞིན་པ་རེད། ཐེངས་འདིའི་འོས་བསྡུའི་ལས་རིམ་ཁྲོད་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་གི་འགན་འཛིན་རྣམ་པའི་གནང་ཕྱོགས་དང་། སྤྱི་ཚོགས་ཐོག་འོས་བསྡུའི་སྐབས་གཡས་གཡོན་དུ་ལྷགས་པའི་གནས་ཚུལ་སོགས་ལ་བརྟེན་ཞུ་གཏུག་སྙན་ཞུ་འདི་འབུལ་གྱི་ཡོད། ང་ཚོས་བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་དང་། བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞི་ལ་ཡིད་ཆེས་བློ་གཏད་ཀྱིས། ཐེངས་འདིའི་འོས་བསྡུ་འདི་བཞིན་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་དང་། འོས་བསྡུ་སྒྲིག་གཞི་གཞིར་བཟུང་ཁྲིམས་མཐུན་དང་། དྲང་བདེན་གྱི་ཐག་གཅོད་ཅིག་སྲིད་སྤྱི་གཉིས་ཀྱི་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞི་གཏན་འབེབས་མ་བྱས་གོང་དུ་བྱེད་དགོས་པའི་དགོས་འདུན་འདོན་པ་ཡིན་ལ། ཁྲིམས་སྒྲིག་འདི་གཉིས་སུ་མ་གསལ་བའི་གང་ཟག་གིས་དབང་བསྒྱུར་བའི་ལས་དོན་གནང་ཕྱོགས་ཤིག་བྱུང་བ་ཡིན་ན། དེ་ནི་དབུས་བོད་མིའི་སྒྲིག་འཛུགས་འདི་ཉིད་སྲ་བརྟན་དང་། རྒྱུན་གནས། གོང་འཕེལ། བོད་མིའི་ཆིག་སྒྲིལ་བཅས་ཡོང་བའི་གཞི་རྟེན་ཁྲིམས་ཀྱིས་དབང་བསྒྱུར་བའི་བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་མང་གཙོའི་རྩ་དོན་ལ་གཏོར་བརླག་གཏོང་བ་ཞིག་ཡིན་པའི་ངོས་འཛིན་བྱེད་བཞིན་ཡོད་པར་མ་ཟད། ང་ཚོས་བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་མང་གཙོའི་ཁྲིམས་སྒྲིག་འདི་དག་ཆབ་སྲིད་ལངས་ཕྱོགས་གང་རུང་ཞིག་གི་ལག་ཆར་མི་འགྱུར་བའི་རེ་བ་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཡོད་ལ།

སྡུག་ས་ནས་ཞུས་ན། ༧གོང་ས་༧སྐྱབས་མགོན་ཆེན་པོ་མཆོག་གིས་བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མི་ཚོར་མང་གཙོ་གནང་ཟིན་ན་ཡང་། ཁྲིམས་སྒྲིག་གཞི་ལ་བཞག་པའི་མང་གཙོ་ལག་བསྟར་མ་བྱུང་བའི་གནས་བབ་འོག བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་མང་གཙོ་རྩོད་ལེན་བསྐྱར་དུ་བྱེད་མི་དགོས་པའི་འགན་ཁུར་གནང་རོགས་ཞུ་བ་ཡིན་ལ། ང་ཚོའི་ཞུ་གཏུག་སྙན་ཞུ་གནས་ཚུལ་ དང་། དོགས་འདྲི་ ༡༨ ཅན་འདི་བོད་མི་ཚང་མས་ཤེས་ཆེད་དང་། བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་བྱུང་རབས་ལོ་རྒྱུས་སུ་ཞིབ་འཇུག་གི་རྒྱུ་ཆར་གནས་ཆེད་ཡོངས་བསྒྲགས་སུ་ཕུལ་བའི་ཞུ་གཏུག་སྙན་ཞུ་ཞིག་ཡིན། སྙན་ཞུའི་འདིར་མིང་འཁོད་ང་ཚོས་བརྡ་ལན་བཟང་པོ་ཞིག་གནང་ངེས་པའི་རེ་བ་དང་ཡིད་ཆེས་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཡོད།

༡༽ གནས་ཚུལ། ཁྱེད་རྣམ་པའི་གསལ་བསྒྲགས། ༢༠༡༥ ཟླ་ ༡༠ ཚེས་ ༡༩ ཉིན་ཁྱེད་རྣམ་པས་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་གནང་དོན་དུ། ༼དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་ཞིང༌། གལ་སྲིད་གཉིས་པ་དང་གསུམ་པའི་དབར་འོས་ཐོབ་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ཉི་ཤུ་ལས་ཉུང་བ་ཡིན་ཚེ་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གསུམ་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན།༽ ཞེས་གསལ་འདུག་ལ། ༼དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་༽པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་གསལ་གསར་ལམ་དུ་འགྲེལ་བརྗོད་གནང་དོན། ༼འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་ཤིག་བཏོན་པ་ཡིན་ན་མང་མོས་ཚད་མཐོན་པོ་ཞིག་ཏན་ཏན་ཡོང་གི་རེད་བསམ་པའི་རེ་བ་དེ་དང། མི་མང་གི་འགོ་ཁྲིད་དེ་མང་མོས་ཚད་མཐོན་པོ་ཡོང་ཐུབ་པ་ཞིག་བྱུང་ན་འགོ་ཁྲིད་ཚད་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཆགས་ཐུབ་པའི་རེ་བ་དང་དམིགས་ཡུལ་གྱི་ཐོག་ནས་འོས་གཞི་མི་གཉིས་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་༽ཞེས་གསུངས་འདུག

དོགས་འདྲི། འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞིའི་དོན་ཚན་གང་ཞིག་ན་མི་མང་གི་འགོ་ཁྲིད་དེ་མང་མོས་ཚད་མཐོན་པོ་ཡོང་ཐབས་བྱེད་དགོས་པའི་འགན་དབང་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ལ་ཡོད་པ་གསལ་ཡོད། 

སྐབས་སྔོན་མར་བཀའ་ཁྲི་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞི་ལ་འོས་ཐོབ་པ་མི་གསུམ་དངོས་གཞི་ནས་དགོངས་པ་མ་ཞུས་པར་བརྟེན་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞི་གསུམ་བཏོན་པ་རེད། མི་མང་གིས་མང་མོས་བརྒྱུད་འོས་ཐོན་བྱུང་བ་རེད། ༧གོང་ས་མཆོག་གིས་སྐུ་དབང་ཡང་རྩིས་སྤྲད་གནང་རིན་ཡོད་པ་ཞིག་ཏུ་གཟིགས་པ་རེད། ད་ལན་སྐབས་སྔོན་མའི་སྒྲིག་མཐུན་འགྲོ་སྟངས་དེས་མ་ཆོག་པར། མི་གཉིས་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞིར་བཏོན་ན་མང་མོས་ཚད་མཐོན་པོ་ཡོང་ཐུབ་པའི་ངེས་པ་གང་ཡོད། མི་གསུམ་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞིར་བཏོན་ན་མང་མོས་ཚད་མཐོོན་པོ་ཡོང་མི་ཐུབ་པའི་ངེས་པ་གང་ཡོད། མང་མོས་ཚད་མཐོན་པོ་ཞིག་བྱུང་ན་འགོ་ཁྲིད་ཚད་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཆགས་ཐུབ་པའི་ཁྲིམས་མཐུན་རྒྱུ་མཚན་གང་ཡོད།

༢༽ གནས་ཚུལ། ༼འོས་སྒྲིག་དོན་ཚན་ ༦༧ ནང་གསལ་ལྟར། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གཏན་འབེབས་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་མ་བྱས་གོང་དུ་འོས་ཁོངས་ནས་དགོངས་ཞུ་ཕྱིར་འཐེན་གོ་སྐབས་སྤྲོད་ཆེད་འོས་དམིགས་དྲུག་ལས་མ་མང་བ་སྔོན་འགྲོའི་འོས་གཞིར་འདོན་རྒྱུ་དང། དངོས་གཞིའི་སྐབས་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་ལས་མ་ཉུང་བ་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་བྱེད་དགོས།༽ཞེས་འོས་སྒྲིག་ལུང་འདྲེན་གྱིས་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་ཤིག་གནང་འདུག་པ་འདིར། འོས་བསྡུ་སྒྲིག་གཞི་དོན་ཚན་ ༦༧ པའི་ནང་གསེས་དོན་ཚན་ པའི་བརྗོད་པ་ པའི་ཚིག་འགའ་དང་། ནང་གསེས་དོན་ཚན་ པའི་ཚིག་འགའ་བཅད་གཏུབ་ཀྱིས་ལུང་དྲངས་ཏེ་ཁྲིམས་སྒྲིག་དགོངས་དོན་ཆད་ལྷག་མེད་པ་ཡིན་མདོག་གནང་འདུག

སྒྲིག་གཞི་ངོ་སྤྲོད། བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་དོན་ཚན། ༩༧ པ། དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་གི་སྤྱི་ཁྱབ་འགན་འཛིན་དང༌། འགན་དབང༌གི་ནང་གསེས་དོན་ཚན་ པར། འོས་བསྡུའི་ལས་དོན་དང་འབྲེལ་བའི་རྩོད་རྙོག་ཇི་ཡོད་ཀྱི་ཞིབ་འཇུག་དང༌། ཐག་གཅོད་ཆ་ཚང་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ནས་བྱ་རྒྱུ།

འོས་སྒྲིག་དོན་ཚན་ ༦༧ པའི་ནང་གསེས་དོན་ཚན་ པའི་བརྗོད་པ་ དང་། དོན་ཚན་ པ་བཅས་སུ། 

་་་་་་་ འོས་དམིགས་དྲུག་ལས་མ་མང་བ་སྔོན་འགྲོའི་འོས་གཞིར་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་བྱེད་དགོས།

སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་གཞི་ནས་དགོངས་ཞུ་བྱེད་འདོད་ཡོད་རིགས་ཀྱིས་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ལ་ཐད་ཀར་དགོངས་པ་ཞུ་འཁྲོལ་དགོས།

་་་་་་ དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་ཟིན་པའི་རྗེས་སུའང་འོས་ཆོས་ཚང་མིན་གྱི་ཀླན་ཀ་སྤྱི་སྒེར་སུ་ཐད་ནས་བྱུང་བའམ། དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ནས་ཤེས་རྟོགས་བྱུང་སྐབས། ཁྲིམས་མཐུན་ཞིབ་འཇུག་གིས་སྒྲིག་དོན་གཞིར་བཟུང་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་ཟིན་པའི་འོས་གཞི་ཆ་ཚང་ངམ། འོས་གཞི་བྱེ་བྲག་པ་སུ་རུང་ཕྱིར་འཐེན་ཆོག

དོན་ཚན་ ་་་་ དགོངས་ཞུའི་རིགས་གྲུབ་རྗེས་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་ལས་མ་ཉུང་བ་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་བྱེད་དགོས།

དོགས་འདྲི། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་ན། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་འོས་ཁོངས་ནས་དགོངས་ཞུ་ཕྱིར་འཐེན་གོ་སྐབས་སྤྲོད་ཆེད་འོས་དམིགས་དྲུག་ལས་མ་མང་བ་སྔོན་འགྲོའི་འོས་གཞིར་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་ཚུལ་སྒྲིག་གཞི་ལུང་དྲངས་པ་ལ་དགོས་པ་གང་འདུག

འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞིར་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་གཞི་ནས་དགོངས་ཞུ་བྱེད་འདོད་ཡོད་རིགས་ཀྱིས་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ལ་ཐད་ཀར་དགོངས་པ་ཞུ་འཁྲོལ་དགོས་ཞེས་དང་། དགོངས་ཞུའི་རིགས་གྲུབ་རྗེས་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་ལས་མ་ཉུང་བ་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་བྱེད་དགོས། ཞེས་གསལ་ཡོད་པས། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞི་ནས་དགོངས་པ་མ་ཞུས་ན་། སྒྲིག་གཞིའི་ཐོག་ནས་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་ལས་མང་བ་ཡོང་ཆོག་པ་གསལ་ཡོད་པས་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་པའི་དམིགས་བསལ་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་བྱེད་དགོས་དོན་གང་ལ་ཐུག་པ་རེད། 

སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་ཐོབ་པ་ཞིག་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞི་ནས་དགོངས་པ་མ་ཞུས་ན་། གོང་གསལ་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་དོན་ཚན་ ༩༧ པའི་ནང་གསེས་དོན་ཚན་ པ་དང་། འོས་སྒྲིག་དོན་ཚན་ ༦༧ ནང་གསེས་བརྗོད་པ་ པའི་རིགས་ཡིན་ན་མ་གཏོགས། དེ་མིན་བཅའ་སྒྲིག་གཉིས་ཀྱི་འབྲུ་དོན་གྱི་ཐོག་ནས་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞིར་ལངས་རྒྱར་འགོག་དགོས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་སྣ་གཅིག་མེད་བཞིན། འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ནས་རང་འགུལ་གྱིས་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞིར་སྡོད་རྒྱུར་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་ཐོབ་པ་མི་གཉིས་མ་གཏོགས་གཞན་དག་དགོངས་པ་གཏོང་བའམ། ཡང་ན་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞི་ལ་ལངས་རྒྱུའི་གོ་སྐབས་འགོག་ཆོག་པའི་ཆ་རྐྱེན་ཞིག བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་དང་། འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞི་གོང་འོག་བར་གསུམ་གང་ན་ཡོད་པ་གསལ་སྟོན་གནང་རོགས།

སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་ཐོབ་མི་གྲངས་དྲུག་ནས་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་མིར་བཞུགས་མཁན་ག་ཚོད་ཡོད་མེད་ལ་མ་ལྟོས་པར་དངོས་གཞི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་ཟེར་བ་ནི། བོད་ཀྱི་ཡུལ་མི་སྟོང་ཕྲག་འགའ་ཞིག་གི་མངོན་འདོད་འོས་ཤོག་འཕེན་ཡུལ་རེ་ཟུང་འགོག་འདོད་དང་། མང་ཚོགས་ལ་གུས་བཀུར་མ་བྱས་པ་ཞིག་ཏུ་ངོས་འཛིན་མི་བྱེད་ཐབས་མེད་ཀྱི་གནད་དོན་ཞིག་དང་། ཁྲིམས་སྒྲིག་གིས་དམིགས་བསལ་བཀག་འགོག་མེད་བཞིན་དུ་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞིར་ཞུགས་མི་བཅུག་པའི་ལས་དོན་གནང་ཕྱོགས་འདི་ནི། ང་ཚོ་འགན་འཛིན་མི་གསུམ་གྲོས་བསྡུར་བྱས་པ་ཡིན། ང་ཚོའི་ཐག་གཅོད་དེ་ཡིན་ཟེར་བ་ཙམ་ལ་ཐུག་གི་མི་འདུག་པས། སྐབས་དེར་ལས་དོན་གནང་ཕྱོགས་འདི་དག་གང་ཟག་གིས་དབང་བསྒྱུར་ཆགས་སོང་ངམ། ཁྲིམས་ཀྱིས་དབང་བསྒྱུར་ཆགས་སོང་།

༣༽ གནས་ཚུལ། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་ཐོབ་པ་༼གལ་སྲིད་གཉིས་པ་དང་གསུམ་པའི་དབར་འོས་ཐོབ་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ཉི་ཤུ་ལས་ཉུང་བ་ཡིན་ཚེ་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གསུམ་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན།༽ ཞེས་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་གནང་འདུག

དོགས་འདྲི། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་ཐོབ་པ་གཉིས་པ་དང་གསུམ་པའི་དབར་འོས་ཐོབ་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ཉི་ཤུ་ལས་ཉུང་བ་ཡིན་ཚེ་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གསུམ་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་ཟེར་བ་འདི་འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞི་དོན་ཚན་གང་གི་དགོངས་དོན་རེད།

སྐབས་སྔོན་མའི་བཀའ་ཁྲིའི་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་མི་བློ་བཟང་སེང་གེ་ལ་འོས་གྲངས་ 22489 དང་། བཀྲས་མཐོང་བསྟན་འཛིན་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་ལ་འོས་གྲངས་ 12319 བཀྲ་ཤིས་དབང་འདུས་ལ་འོས་གྲངས་ 2101 བཅས་སྔོན་འགྲོའི་སྐབས་སུ་འོས་ཐོབ་ཡོད་པ་དང་། དེ་སྐབས་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་གི་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་ཐོབ་པ་གཉིས་པ་དང་གསུམ་པའི་དབར་འོས་ཐོབ་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ཉི་ཤུ་ལས་ཉུང་བ་ཡིན་མིན་ལ་མ་གཟིགས་པར་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞིར་བཏོན་འདུག་པས་འོས་བསྡུ་སྒྲིག་གཞི་དང་འགལ་ཡོད་དམ་མེད།

ཡང་ན་ཕྱི་ལོ་ ༢༠༡༡ ལོའི་རྗེས་སུ་འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞིར་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་སྔོན་འགྲོའི་འོས་བསྡུའི་སྐབས་སུ་འོས་ཐོབ་པ་གཉིས་པ་དང་། གསུམ་པའི་དབར་འོས་ཐོབ་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ཉི་ཤུ་ལས་ཉུང་བ་ཡིན་མིན་གཟིགས་དགོས་པའི་སྒྲིག་གཞི་གསར་པ་གཏན་འབེབས་བྱུང་ཡོད་དམ།

སྲིད་སྐྱོང་སྔོན་འགྲོའི་འོས་ཐོབ་པ་གཉིས་པ་དང་། གསུམ་པའི་བར་འོས་ཐོབ་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ཉི་ཤུ་ལས་ཉུང་བ་ཡིན་མིན་གཟིགས་དགོས་པ་ཞིག་འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་དང་། འདི་ལོའི་འོས་བསྡུའི་ལམ་སྟོན་དོན་ཚན་དགུ་ཅན་དང་། དེའི་འགྲེལ་བཤད་ཡིག་ཐོག་ཏུ་གནང་བ་བཅས་ན་མེད་ཀྱང་། ཚེས་ ༡༨ ཉིན་གྱི་སྔོན་འགྲོའི་འོས་འཕེན་ལས་རིམ་གྲུབ་པའི་སང་ཉིན་ནམ། ཚེས་ ༡༩ ཉིན་འོས་གྲངས་བཤེར་བཞིན་ཡོད་པའི་༼ཉིན་འདིར་རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་ཆུ་ཚོད་ ༡༢ མ་ཟིན་གོང་བལ་ཡུལ་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་འོས་གྲངས་བརྩིས་ཟིན་༽སྐབས་སུ། གལ་སྲིད་གཉིས་པ་དང་གསུམ་པའི་དབར་འོས་ཐོབ་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ཉི་ཤུ་ལས་ཉུང་བ་ཡིན་ཚེ་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གསུམ་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་ཞེས་དམིགས་བསལ་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་གཏོང་བ་འདི་ལ་དོགས་པ་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་སླེབས་ཡོད་པས། གནང་ཕྱོགས་འདི་འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞིའི་དོན་ཚན་གང་ལ་ཁུངས་གཏུག་གི་ཡོད།

སྲིད་སྐྱོང་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་ཐོབ་གཉིས་པ་དང་གསུམ་པའི་དབར་གྱི་འོས་ཐོབ་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ཉི་ཤུ་ལས་ཉུང་བ་ཡིན་མིན་ལ་བལྟས་ནས་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞིར་འདོན་དགོས་མིན་ཐག་གཅོད་ཆོག་པའི་ཆ་རྐྱེན་ཞིག དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ནས་གསར་བཟོ་ཆོག་པའི་འགན་དབང་ཞིག་བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་དང་། འོས་བསྡུ་སྒྲིག་གཞིའི་དོན་ཚན་གང་གིས་གནང་ཡོད་དམ།

ཡང་ན་དེ་ལྟར་བྱེད་ཆོག་པར་བཅའ་སྒྲིག་གི་ཐོག་ནས་ང་ཚོ་ཁུངས་གཏུག་ས་གང་ཡང་མེད། ང་ཚོ་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་འགན་འཛིན་མི་གསུམ་གྲོས་བསྡུར་བྱས་པ་ཡིན། ང་ཚོའི་ཐག་གཅོད་དེ་ཡིན་ཟེར་བ་ཙམ་ཡིན་པས། གལ་ཏེ་དེ་ལྟར་ཡིན་ན་ཁྲིམས་སྒྲིག་གིས་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ལོན་དགོས་མིན་གྱི་བཀག་འགོག་མེད་བཞིན་དུ་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་མིར་ཞུགས་བཅུག་གི་མེད་པ་དེ་གང་ཟག་གིས་དབང་བསྒྱུར་ཆགས་སོང་ངམ། ཁྲིམས་ཀྱིས་དབང་བསྒྱུར་ཆགས་སོང་།

༤༽ གནས་ཚུལ། ཡང་དངོས་གཞིའི་འོས་གཞི་གཉིས་འདོན་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་པའི་ཐག་གཅོད་གནང་དོན་གྱི་རྒྱབ་ལྗོངས་ཐད་གསར་ལམ་དུ་གསུངས་དོན། ༼ད་ལྟའི་འོས་བསྡུ་ཆེན་མོ་དེ་༧སྐྱབས་མགོན་རིན་པོ་ཆེས་སྐུ་དབང་རྩིས་སྤྲོད་གནང་བའི་རྗེས་སུ་སོ་སོས་ཐད་ཀར་ཆབ་སྲིད་ཀྱི་དབུ་ཁྲིད་འདེམས་པ་ཐེངས་དང་པོ་དེ་ཆགས་ཡོད་ཙང་།༽ཞེས་གསུངས་འདུག

དྲན་སྐུལ་ལོ་རྒྱུས། དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལྷན་ཁང་ནས་ཐག་གཅོད་འདིའི་རྒྱབ་ལྗོངས་གང་ཡིན་འགྲེལ་བརྗོད་འདི་ལྟར་གནང་བར་བརྟེན་ནས་འདིར་ཕྱི་ལོ་ ༢༠༡༠/༢༠༡༡ ལོའི་༧གོང་ས་མཆོག་གི་ལོ་རྒྱུས་རང་བཞིན་གྱི་བཀའ་སློབ་དང་གསུང་འཕྲིན་འགའ་དྲན་སྐུལ་ཞུ་རྒྱུར།

༢༠༡༠//༣༡ ཉིན་བོད་གཞུང་མང་རྒྱལ་ཡོངས་ཚོགས་ཆེན་ཐེངས་དང་པོའི་ཐོག ཁྱོད་རང་ཚོས་རྒས་ཡོལ་ཞེས་པ་འདི་འགྲིག་གི་མི་འདུག་ཅེས་བརྗོད་ཀྱང་། ང་ལ་འགྲོ་བ་མིའི་ཐོབ་ཐང་ཡོད་དམ་མེད། ཅེས་པ་འདི་ཡིན།

༢༠༡༡//༡༠ ཉིན་གསུམ་དུས་གསུང་འཕྲིན་དུ། འདི་ཟླའི་ཕྱི་ཚེས་ ༡༤ ནས་འགོ་འཛུགས་རྒྱུའི་སྐབས་བཅུ་བཞི་པའི་བོད་མི་མང་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ལྷན་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་ཚོགས་དུས་བཅུ་གཅིག་པའི་ཐོག་འཕྲིན་ཡིག་གི་ལམ་ནས་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་ཀྱིས་གཙོས་ཁྲིམས་སྒྲིག་ཁག་ལ་གཞི་རྩའི་བསྐྱར་བཅོས་བྱ་དགོས་རྣམས་བྱེད་དགོས་པའི་ལམ་སྟོན་བྱས་ཏེ་ཆབ་སྲིད་ཀྱི་དབང་ལུང་ཡོངས་རྫོཌ་་འོས་འདེམས་བྱས་པའི་འགོ་ཁྲིད་རྣམས་ལ་རྩིས་སྤྲོད་བྱ་རྒྱུའི་ཐག་གཅོད་ཟིན་པ་ཡིན།

༢༠༡༡//༡༡ ཉིན་སྐབས་བཅུ་བཞི་པའི་གྲོས་ཚོགས་སུ་གསུང་འཕྲིན་ཕེབས་དོན། ད་ཆ་རང་རེའི་མང་གཙོའི་འཕེལ་རིམ་ཡོངས་སུ་རྫོགས་པའི་ཆེད་དུ་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེས་བོད་ཀྱི་ཆབ་སྲིད་ཀྱི་འགན་ཁུར་མ་དགོས་པར་མི་མང་གིས་འོས་འདེམས་བྱས་པའི་འགོ་ཁྲིད་སོ་སོས་ཆབ་སྲིད་ཀྱི་དབང་ལུང་ཡོངས་རྫོགས་འགན་ཁུར་བྱེད་དགོས་པའི་དུས་ལ་བབས་ཡོད།

གོང་གསལ་བཀའ་སློབ་དང་གསུང་འཕྲིན་དེ་དག་གིས་ཕྱི་ལོ་ ༢༠༡༠/༢༠༡༡ ལོའི་བཀའ་སྤྱི་གཉིས་ཀྱི་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་བསྡུ་མ་བྱས་གོང་ནས་དང་། དངོས་གཞི་འོས་བསྡུ་མ་བྱས་གོང་ནས་བོད་མི་མང་ལ་བོད་མིའི་ཆབ་སྲིད་ཀྱི་འགན་དབང་ཡོངས་རྫོགས་ལ་འགན་ཁུར་ཐུབ་མཁན་གྱི་མི་སྣ་འདེམས་དགོས་པའི་བཀའ་ནན་ལྡོག་མེད་རིམ་པར་གནང་ཡོད་པ་ར་སྤྲད་ཡོད་ལ། སྐབས་དེར་མང་ཚོགས་ནས་དེ་དོན་གསལ་པོ་མཁྱེན་རྟོགས་བྱུང་ཡོད་ལ། མི་མང་གིས་དེ་བཞིན་འགན་ཁུར་བའི་ཐོག་ནས་འོས་འཕངས་པ་བརྒྱུད་ད་ལྟའི་ལས་ཐོག་བཀའ་སྤྱི་གཉིས་འོས་འདེམས་བྱུང་བ་རེད།

དོགས་འདྲི། གོང་འཁོད་བཞིན་ཕྱི་ལོ་ ༢༠༡༠/༢༠༡༡ ལོ་དེར་༧གོང་ས་མཆོག་གི་ཆབ་སྲིད་ཀྱི་འགན་དབང་རྩིས་སྤྲོད་གནང་ཡུལ་གྱི་བོད་མིའི་ཆབ་སྲིད་ཀྱི་འགོ་ཁྲིད་འོས་འདེམས་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཡོད་པ་དེ་ལ་མི་མང་དང་། སྐབས་དེའི་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ནས་ཁྱེད་རྣམ་པའི་གསུང་བཞིན་པའི་རྒྱབ་ལྗོངས་དེ་ལ་འགན་ཁུར་ཡག་པོ་གནང་མི་འདུག་གསུང་གིན་ཡོད་དམ།

ཡང་ན་སྐབས་དེར་མི་མང་དང་། དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་གཉིས་ནས་འགན་ཁུར་ཡག་པོ་གནང་འདུག་མོད། ཡིན་ནའང་ད་ལན་དགོས་པ་གཞན་ཞིག་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་དེ་ལྟར་གནང་བ་ཡིན་གསུང་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་ནམ། དཱ་འོ་ན་དགོས་པ་དེ་གང་ཡིན།

༥༽ གནས་ཚུལ། ཡབ་གཞིས་བཀའ་ཟུར་བསྟན་པ་ཚེ་རིང་གིས་གསུངས་དོན། དེ་རིང་ཁ་སང་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ལ་མཚན་སྨད་ཞུ་མཁན། ༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ལ་རྒྱལ་ཚོང་བ་རེད་ཟེར་ཞུ་མཁན། ༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་གིས་བོད་གཞུང་སྒོ་རྒྱབ་པ་རེད་ཟེར་མཁན། ༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་གིས་བོད་རང་བཙན་བློས་བཏང་བ་རེད་ཟེར་མཁན་དེ་ང་ཚོས་ཕར་ཚུར་བཀབ་ཡག་གང་ཡོད་མ་རེད། དེ་ཡོད་རེད། ང་ཚོ་ཚང་མས་ཤེས་ཀི་ཡོད་རེད། ཡིན་ནའང་ང་ཚོས་ཤེས་གིན་ཤེས་གིན་ལ། ང་ཚོས་གོ་གིན་གོ་གིན་ལ། འདི་འདྲ་སྣང་མེད་ཟོལ་འདྲ་པོ་བཞག་པ་ཡིན་ན་ཁྱད་མཚར་པོ་རེད་བསམ་གྱི་འདུག མི་འདིའི་རིགས་ཀྱིས་གནས་དུས་ཚོད་བརྩིས་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཡོད་རེད། རྒྱ་མིས་གིས་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ལ་མཚན་སྨད་འདི་ག་ཙམ་ཞུ་གི་ཡོད་མ་རེད་དེ། མི་འདི་ཚོས་ཞུ་བསྡད་གི་ཡོད་རེད། རང་བཙན་ཁ་ལ་ཁྱེར། རང་དབང་ཁ་ལ་ཁྱེར། མང་གཙོ་ཁ་ལ་ཁྱེར། མི་དེ་འདྲ་ཞུ་མཁན་དེ་སོ་སོ་རེད་པས། དེ་འདྲའི་ཐོག་ལ་ངོས་འཛིན་གསལ་པོ་བྱེད་ཐུབ་པ་དགོས་རེད་བསམ་གྱི་འདུག

ཡབ་གཞིས་བཀའ་ཟུར་སྐུའི་གཅུང་མོ་རྗེ་བཙུན་པདྨ་ཡིས་གསུངས་དོན། དངོས་གནས་དྲང་གནས་ལམ་ཀ་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ལས་ལྷག་པ་བོད་མིའི་དཀྱིལ་ལ། ང་ཚོར་ལམ་ཀ་བསྟན་མཁན་སུ་ཡོད་རེད། ད་ལྟ་བར་དུ། དཱ་ཧོབ་ཏེ་སྒང་ལ་མི་དེ་འདྲ་དོན་ཡོང་། ཡས་ཡས་ལ་འགྲོ་དགོས་རེད། མས་མས་ལ་འགྲོ་དགོས་རེད་ཟེར། ང་ཚོ་མང་པོ་ཅིག་དེ་འདྲ་ལ་མགོ་འཁོར་ནས་ཕྱིན་པ་ཡིན་ན་ལྐུགས་པ་རེད་བསམ་གྱི། བྱས་ཙང་དགོངས་པ་ཡག་པོ་བཞེས་རོགས་གནང་། སང་ཉིན་འོས་ཤོག་བླུགས་ག་ཕེབས་མཁན་རེད། དགོངས་པ་ཡག་པོ་བཞེས། ཅེས་དང་། མུ་མཐུད་དེ་གསུངས་དོན། ད་ལྟ་ལོ་བཞི་བཅུ་ཞེ་གྲངས་ལ་སླེབས། རེད་པ། ཡས་ཡས་བྱེད་གི་ཡིན། མས་མས་བྱེད་གི་ཡིན་ཟེར་མཁན་མི་དེས་ད་ལྟ་བར་དུ་ག་རེ་བྱས་འདུག་ཟེར་ནས་ཞིབ་འཇུག་ཅིག་གནང་ན་ཡག་པོ་འདུག་པ། ཁ་བདེ་པོའི་སྒང་ལ་ཕྱིན་ན་འགྲིག་གི་མི་འདུག ཨི་ནས་རྦད་དེ་ང་ཚོའི་སྤྱི་ཚོགས་ལ་མགོ་སྐོར་གཏོང་གི་འདུག་པ། གཞོན་སྐྱེས་མང་པོ་ཅིག་གིས་མགོ་ཅིག་ཚོས་གི་མི་འདུག་པ། རེད་པ། སློབ་སྦྱོང་བྱས་པ་ཡིན་ཟེར་བྱས། སློབ་སྦྱོང་བྱེད་མཁན་མི་གཅིག་གིས་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ལ་ཁ་བཏང་མཁན་མི་གཅིག་ལ་འོས་ཤོག་བླུགས་པ་ཡིན་ན་ལྐུགས་པ་མ་རེད་པས། ང་ཡིན་ན་དངོས་གནས་་་་་་ ང་ཡིན་ན་དེ་འདྲ་བྱས་པ་ཡིན་ན་ང་ཚོས་དཀའ་ལས་རྒྱབ་པ་དེ་ནོར་བཞག་བསམ་གི

འོས་བསྡུ་སྒྲིག་གཞི། འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞི་དོན་ཚན་ ༢༤ ཡི་ནང་གསེས་ // པ་བཅས་སུ་འཁོད་དོན། འོས་གཞིའམ་འོས་འཕེན་པའི་སྐྱེ་བོ་ལ་དྲག་ཤུགས་ཀྱི་འཇིགས་སྣང་སྐུལ་བ་ཡང་ན། སྐྱེ་བོ་གང་དག་འོས་གཞིར་འཛུལ་འཐེན་སོགས་ཀྱི་འོས་བསྡུའི་རང་དབང་ལ་ཐེ་བྱུས་འགལ་རྐྱེན་བྱེད་པ། འོས་བསྡུའི་དུས་ཚེས་ཀྱི་ཉིན་གྲངས་གཉིས་གོང་ནས་འོས་བསྡུ་མ་ཟིན་བར་རྒྱབ་གཉེར་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་བྱེད་མཚམས་འཇོག་དགོས། སྐྱེ་བོ་སུ་རུང་ནས་སྐྱེ་བོ་གཞན་ཞིག་ལ་འོས་བསྡུའི་རྒྱལ་ཁ་མ་ཐོབ་པའི་བསམ་སྦྱོར་ངན་པས་ཀུན་ནས་བསླངས་ཏེ་གཞི་མེད་སྒྲོ་བཏགས་ཀྱིས་སྐྱོན་བརྗོད་དམའ་འབེབས་བྱེད་པ་དང་། ལུང་ཚན་དང་། ཆོས་བརྒྱུད། སྤྱི་ཚོགས་བཅས་ཀྱི་དབར་དབྱེན་སྦྱོར་གྱིས་ཕན་ཚུན་འཁོན་འཁྲུག་འབྱུང་གཞིའི་རྐྱེན་སློང་བྱེད་པ།

འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞི་དོན་ཚན་ ༢༥ ཡི་ནང་གསེས་ / པ་རུ་འཁོད་དོན། འོས་གཞིའི་སྐྱེ་བོའམ་དེར་ཕྱོགས་གཏོགས་བྱེད་མི་ནས་དོན་ཚན་གང་རུང་དང་འགལ་རིགས་བྱུང་ཚེ། འགལ་ཚབས་ཆེ་ཆུང་ལ་གཞིགས་ཏེ། དོ་བདག་གི་འོས་ཐོབ་ཆ་ཚང་རྩིས་མེད་དང་། ལོ་གསུམ་ནས་བཅུ་བར་འོས་གཞིར་ཞུགས་རྒྱུའི་ཐོབ་ཐང་འཕྲོག་ཆོག སྐྱེ་བོ་གང་ཞིག་ནས་དོན་ཚན་གང་རུང་དང་འགལ་རིགས་བྱུང་ཚེ། འགལ་ཚབས་ཆེ་ཆུང་ལ་གཞིགས་ཏེ། སྐྱེ་བོ་དེར་ལོ་གསུམ་ནས་ལོ་བཅུ་བར་འོས་འཕེན་རྒྱུའི་ཐོབ་ཐང་འཕྲོག་ཆོག དེ་བཞིན་སྐབས་འདིར་ཁྱེད་རྣམ་པའི་ལམ་སྟོན་དོན་ཚན་དགུ་ཅན་ནི་དྲན་སྐུལ་ཞུ་མི་དགོས་པ་བྱེད།

དོགས་འདྲི། གོང་དུ་གནང་བའི་གཏམ་བཤད་ནས་གསལ་བ་བཞིན་སང་ཉིིན་ཞོགས་པ་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་བསྡུ་༼རྒྱ་གར་གྱི་དུས་ཚོད་གཞིར་བཞག་ན་སྔོན་འགྲོའི་འོས་བསྡུའི་ཉིན་མོ་༽ཡིན་པ་ཤེས་བཞིན་ཡབ་གཞིས་བཀའ་ཟུར་དག་གིས་གཏམ་བཤད་འདི་འདྲ་སུད་སི་ཧོར་གྷེན་ས་གནས་སུ་མི་མང་འདུ་འཛོམས་ཐོག་གསུངས་པ་རེད། འདི་ནི་འོས་བསྡུའི་དུས་ཚེས་ཀྱི་ཉིན་གྲངས་གཉིས་གོང་ནས་འོས་བསྡུ་མ་ཟིན་བར་འོས་བསྡུ་སྐོར་གྱི་གསལ་བསྒྲགས་མི་ཆོག་པ་དང་། འོས་གཞིའམ་འོས་འཕེན་པའི་སྐྱེ་བོ་ལ་༼ལུས་ངག་༽དྲག་ཤུགས་ཀྱི་འཇིགས་སྣང་སྐུལ་བ། སྐྱེ་བོ་གཞན་ཞིག་ལ་འོས་བསྡུའི་རྒྱལ་ཁ་མ་ཐོབ་པའི་བསམ་སྦྱོར་ངན་པས་ཀུན་ནས་བསླངས་ཏེ་དམའ་འབེབས་བྱེད་པ་དང་། ཆོས་བརྒྱུད། སྤྱི་ཚོགས་བཅས་ཀྱི་དབར་དབྱེན་སྦྱོར་གྱིས་ཕན་ཚུན་འཁོན་འཁྲུག་འབྱུང་གཞིའི་རྐྱེན་སློང་བྱེད་པ་ཆགས་མི་འདུག་གམ།

དེ་འདྲ་ཆགས་མི་འདུག་གསུང་གི་ཡིན་ན་༼འདི་འདྲ་སྣང་མེད་ཟོལ་འདྲ་པོ་བཞག་པ་ཡིན་ན་ཁྱད་མཚར་པོ་རེད་བསམ་གྱི་འདུག༽ ༼མི་དེ་འདྲ་ཞུ་མཁན་དེ་སོ་སོ་རེད་པས།༽ ༼སློབ་སྦྱོང་བྱས་པ་ཡིན་ཟེར་བྱས། སློབ་སྦྱོང་བྱེད་མཁན་མི་གཅིག་གིས་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་ལ་ཁ་བཏང་མཁན་མི་གཅིག་ལ་འོས་ཤོག་བླུགས་པ་ཡིན་ན་ལྐུགས་པ་མ་རེད་པས། ང་ཡིན་ན་དངོས་གནས་་་་་་་་་་་་ ང་ཡིན་ན་དེ་འདྲ་བྱས་པ་ཡིན་ན་ང་ཚོས་དཀའ་ལས་རྒྱབ་པ་དེ་ནོར་བཞག་བསམ་གི༽ ཟེར་བ་འདི་དག་ནི་འོས་མི་གང་རུང་ལ་འོས་འཕེན་མི་ཉན་པའི་དྲིལ་བསྒྲགས་ཡིན་པ་ཙམ་དུ་མ་ཟད། བོད་མིའི་གྲལ་ནས་ཕུད་དགོས་པའི་མི་མང་སྐུལ་སློང་མིན་ན་གང་རེད། ད་དུང་ཁོང་རྣམ་གཉིས་ནས་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་བཀའ་དྲིན་ཆེན་པོ་ཡིན་རབས་མང་དག་གསུངས་འདུག རྒྱ་ནག་གཞུང་གི་རྒྱུགས་ཁྱི་དོལ་རྒྱལ་བ་རེ་འགའ་མ་གཏོགས་བོད་མི་མང་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ་བཀའ་དྲིན་ཆེན་པོ་མ་རེད་ཅེས་བཤད་མཁན་སུ་འདུག ལྷག་པར་སྲིད་སྤྱི་གཉིས་ཀྱི་འོས་མིར་ལངས་པ་སུས་བཤད་འདུག མ་གཞི་ནས་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེའི་དགོངས་པ་དང་མི་མཐུན་པའི་མི་ལ་འོས་ཤོག་འཕེན་མི་ཉན་པའི་སྐུལ་སློང་བྱེད་པ་འདི་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེས་གསོལ་བསྩལ་གནང་བའི་མང་གཙོ་ལ་འགན་ཁུར་སྟངས་རེད་དམ། བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་བཅའ་ཁྲིམས་ལ་འགན་ཁུར་སྟངས་རེད་དམ། ༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེས་གནང་བའི་བཙན་བྱོལ་བོད་མིའི་མང་གཙོ་དེ་༧རྒྱལ་བ་རིན་པོ་ཆེའི་དགོངས་གཞི་ལ་འོས་འཕེན་དགོས་པའི་ལམ་ལུགས་ཤིག་རེད་དམ། དེ་འདྲ་ཡིན་ན་དེ་ལ་མང་གཙོ་ཟེར་གྱི་རེད་དམ། དེར་བརྟེན་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་ནས་གོང་གསལ་གནད་དོན་ལ་ཐག་གཅོད་ཇི་ལྟར་གནང་གི་ཡིན་ནམ། འོས་བསྡུའི་སྒྲིག་གཞིའི་དགོངས་དོན་ལག་བསྟར་ཇི་ལྟར་གནང་གི་ཡིན། ད་ལྟ་ཡང་དྲ་ཐག་འདི་ནས་གཟིགས་ཐུབ། (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69TiNs5gTMA)

༦༽ གནས་ཚུལ། སྐབས་སྔོན་མ་བཀའ་ཟུར་རྒྱ་རི་ཚང་གིས་འོས་འཕེན་གྲུབ་པ་དང་སུ་ལ་འོས་བླུགས་ཚར་བ་དང་གསུངས་པ་རེད། འོས་ཤོག་རྩིས་མེད་བཏང་ཡོད་མ་རེད། ད་ལོ་མི་འགའ་ཞིག་གིས་སུ་ལ་འོས་བླུགས་མིན་གསལ་པོ་བཤད་པ་རེད། ང་ཚོས་ཤེས་རྟོགས་བྱུང་བར་རྡ་སར་ཀླུ་མཁར་བྱམས་ལ་འོས་བླུགས་པ་ཡིན་ཟེར་མཁན་དང་། ཡང་ན་རང་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ངོས་ནས་སུ་ལ་འོས་བླུགས་པ་གསང་བ་བྱེད་དགོས་དོན་མེད་པ་ཚོས་གསལ་པོ་གསུངས་པ་རེད། དེ་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་འོས་ཤོག་ལྔ་དྲུག་གཅིག་རྩིས་མེད་བཏང་ཡོད་པ་ཁྱེད་རྣམས་ནས་གསུངས་འདུག་ལ། ཁྱེད་རྣམ་པས་༼ངས་འཕངས་པ་ཡིན་ཞེས་ཕ་རོལ་པོ་ལ་ངོ་རྟགས་ཟིན་པ་ཞིག་བྱེད་མི་ཆོག་པ་དེ་༽དགག་བྱ་དང་འགལ་ཡོད་སྐོར་གསུངས་འདུག

དོགས་འདྲི། དེས་ན་སྔོན་འགྲོ་འོས་བསྡུ་གྲུབ་པ་དང་། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་འོས་མིར་ལངས་པ་སྤེན་པ་ཚེ་རིང་དང་། བཀྲ་ཤིས་སྟོབས་རྒྱལ་གཉིས་ནས་སུ་ལ་འོས་འཕངས་པ་གསར་ལམ་དུ་འགྲེལ་བརྗོད་ཞུས་འདུག ཁྱེད་རྣམ་པའི་རྩ་དོན་༼ངོ་རྟགས་ཟིན་པ་ཞིག་བྱེད་མི་ཆོག་པ་དེ་༽དང་འགལ་འདུག་པས་འོས་ཤོག་རྩིས་མེད་བཏང་ཡོད་དང་མེད།

༧༽ གནས་ཚུལ། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་འོས་མིར་ལངས་པ་སྤེན་པ་ཚེ་རིང་མཆོག་གིས་བཞུགས་སྒར་རྡ་རམ་ས་ལར་སྲིད་སྐྱོང་འོས་མིའི་མིང་ཐོག་ནས་མང་ཚོགས་ལ་གཏམ་བཤད་བྱེད་སྐབས་བོད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་དར་བེད་སྤྱོད་བཏང་ཡོད་པ་ཨེ་ཤ་ཡ་རང་དབང་རླུང་འཕྲིན་ཁང་གི་དྲ་བརྙན་གསར་འགྱུར་དྲ་ཐག་འདི་ནས་གཟིགས་ཐུབ། (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFMJhgkLnUg)

དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་གི་གསལ་བསྒྲགས། འོས་གཞིར་ཞུགས་མཁན་སུ་ཐད་ནས་ཀྱང་སྐབས་དོན་སོ་སོར་འོས་བསྡུའི་རྒྱལ་ཁ་ཐོབ་ཆེད་དུ་དྲིལ་བསྒྲགས་ཡིག་ཆའི་ཐོག་༧གོང་ས་མཆོག་གི་སྐུ་པར་དང་། བོད་མིའི་སྒྲིག་འཛུགས་ཀྱི་ལས་རྟགས། རྒྱལ་དར་དང་བོད་ཀྱི་ས་ཁྲ་བཅས་བེད་སྤྱོད་བྱེད་མི་ཆོག གལ་སྲིད་དེ་འདྲའི་བྱས་འཛོལ་དངོས་ར་འཕྲོད་པ་བྱུང་ཚེ། འོས་གཞི་སྐྱེ་བོ་གང་དེའི་འོས་ཐོབ་ཀྱི་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ རྩིས་མེད་གཏོང་རྒྱུའི་ཉེས་ཆད་སྐོར་གྱི་འབྲེལ་ཡོད་ལམ་སྟོན།དེ་ལྟར་བེད་སྤྱོད་མི་ཆོག་ཅེས་པའི་གཙོ་གནད་ནི་རང་ཉིད་འོས་བསྡུའི་རྒྱལ་ཁ་ཐོབ་ཆེད་དུ་དམིགས་ཏེ་རྒྱབ་ལྗོངས་ལ་གསར་དུ་གོང་གསལ་པར་རིས་དེ་དག་བེད་སྤྱོད་མི་ཆོག་པ་ལས། རང་གི་མི་ཚེའི་བྱུང་བའི་ནང་ལས་དོན་སྐབས་དང་ལས་དོན་སྒྲུབ་ཡུལ་སོགས་སུ་པར་རིས་དེ་དག་ཡོད་པ་ཙམ་ལ་གོ་བ་མིན། པར་བསྐྲུན་དང་འགྲེམ་སྤེལ་བྱེད་མཁན་གྱི་མིང་བྱང་ཁ་གསལ་མེད་ཚེ་རྩིས་མེད་གཏོང་རྒྱུ། གལ་སྲིད་སྐྱེ་བོ་སུ་རུང་ནས་དེ་ལྟར་བྱས་འཛོལ་དངོས་ར་འཕྲོད་པ་བྱུང་ཚེ་ལོ་ རིང་གཞུང་འབྲེལ་སྡེ་ཚན་གང་དུ་ཡང་འོས་འཕེན་པའི་ཐོབ་ཐང་འཕྲོག་རྒྱུ། ཞེས་ཡིག་གནང་འདུག

དོགས་འདྲི། སྲིད་སྐྱོང་འོས་གཞིར་ཞུགས་མཁན་ཚོགས་གཙོ་སྤེན་པ་ཚེ་རིང་མཆོག་གི་དེའི་འོས་ཐོབ་ཀྱི་བརྒྱ་ཆ་ རྩིས་མེད་དང་། ཁོང་ཉིད་འོས་འཕེན་པ་ཞིག་ཡིན་པའི་ཆ་ནས་ལོ་ རིང་གཞུང་འབྲེལ་སྡེ་ཚན་གང་དུ་ཡང་འོས་འཕེན་པའི་ཐོབ་ཐང་འཕྲོག་གི་རེད་དང་མ་རེད།

མཐའ་དོན་དྲི་བ། འོས་བསྡུ་སྒྲིག་གཞི་དོན་ཚན་ ༢༥ པའི་ནང་གསེས་ པར་འདི་ལྟར་འཁོད། འོས་བསྡུའི་ལས་བྱེད་གང་རུང་ནས་གོ་དབང་བེད་ལོག་ཏུ་སྤྱད་པའམ། ་་་་་་་ ལམ་སེང་འོས་བསྡུའི་ལས་འགན་ནས་གནས་དབྱུང་གཏོང་དགོས། ཞེས་གསལ་ཡོད། དེ་བརྟེན་གོང་དུ་གནས་ཚུལ་ དང་། དོགས་འདྲི་ ༡༨ རིམ་པར་ཞུས་པའི་དོན་ཚན་དེ་དག་ལ་ཁྲིམས་སྒྲིག་གཞི་ལ་འགན་ཁུར་བའི་ཁ་གསལ་གོ་བདེའི་ལན་འདེབས་དང་སྒྲིག་གཞི་ལག་བསྟར་ཚུལ་བཞིན་མེད་ཚེ་དབུས་འོས་བསྡུ་ལས་ཁང་གི་འགན་འཛིན་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་གྱིས་འོས་བསྡུ་སྒྲིག་གཞི་དོན་ཚན་ ༢༥ པའི་ནང་གསེས་ དགོངས་དོན་འདིའི་ཐོག་ནས་རང་འགུལ་གྱིས་དགོངས་པ་ཞུ་དགོས་པར་མཐོང་གི་ཡོད།

གུས་འདུད་བཅས་ཕྱི་ལོ་ ༢༠༡༥ ཕྱི་ཟླ་ ༡༡ ཚེས་ ༡༦ ལ་གཤམ་འཁོད་ཐུན་མོང་ནས།

ངོ་བཤུས། ཆེས་མཐོའི་ཁྲིམས་ཞིབ་ཁང་།

བོད་མི་མང་སྤྱི་འཐུས་ལྷན་ཚོགས།

བཀའ་ཤག

ཨང་། མིང་། སྡོད་གནས། མིང་རྟགས།

དབང་གྲགས་རྡོ་རྗེ། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

ཤེས་རབ་དཔལ་བཟང་། སུད་སི།

མིག་དམར་ཚེ་རིང་། ལྡི་ལི།

སྨོན་ལམ་གྲགས་པ། སྦེལ་ལྗམ།

སྐལ་བཟང་། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

སྡེ་དགེ་ཁྲོ་ལ། སྦེལ་ལྗམ།

ཐུབ་བསྟན་ཆོས་འཕེལ། ཐེ་ཝན།

རྒྱལ་མཚན། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

བསྟན་འཛིན་རྒྱལ་མཚན། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༡༠ བསོད་ནམས་བདེ་ཆེན། ཨ་རི།

༡༡ ཚེ་ཕྱུག བལ་ཡུལ།

༡༢ Thupten tharching ཨ་རི།

༡༣ བསོད་ནམས་སྟོབས་རྒྱལ། སུད་སི།

༡༤ བསོད་ནམས་རྡོ་རྗེ། རྡ་རམ་ས་ལ།

༡༥ རྡོ་རྗེ་དཔལ་ལྡན། ཨ་རི།

༡༦ རིན་ཆེན་ཡར་འཕེལ། ཨ་རི།

༡༧ ཚེ་རིང་། སུད་སི།

༡༨ ཚེ་རིང་བསམ་འགྲུབ། ཨ་རི།

༡༩ བསོད་ནམས་བཟང་པོ། ཨ་རི།

༢༠ བཀྲ་ཤིས་ཕུན་ཚོགས། ཀེ་ན་སྒྲ།

༢༡ དངོས་གྲུབ་ཚེ་རིང་། ཨ་རི།

༢༢ ལྷག་རྒྱལ། ཨ་རི།

༢༣ ཚུལ་ཁྲིམས། ཨ་རི།

༢༤ ཡོན་ཏན་རྡོ་རྗེ། སུད་སི།

༢༥ བདེ་ཆེན་དབང་མོ། ཨ་རི།

༢༦ བློ་བཟང་། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༢༧ ཉི་མ་ལྷ་མོ། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༢༨ པདྨ་འོད་ཟེར། སུད་སི།

༢༩ སྐལ་བཟང་ཆོས་སྒྲོན། ཨ་རི།

༣༠ རྡོ་རྗེ་རྒྱལ་མཚན། སྦེལ་ལྗམ།

༣༡ བློ་དགའ། ཨ་རི།

༣༢ བློ་བཟང་། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༣༣ བསྟན་འཛིན་བྱམས་པ། རྒྱ་གར་ལྡི་ལི།

༣༤ ཟླ་བ་ཚེ་རིང་། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༣༥ རྩེ་བུ་རྒྱ་མཚོ། སུད་སི།

༣༦ ཉག་གཤིས་རྒྱལ་མཚན། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༣༧ སྒྲོལ་མ་ལྷ་མོ། ཨ་རི།

༣༨ ཚེ་དབང་བཀྲ་ཤིས། བལ་ཡུལ།

༣༩ བསྟན་འཛིན། ༥༩ ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༤༠ གཡུང་དྲུང་ཚེ་བརྟན། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༤༡ བཀྲ་ཤིས་ལྷ་མོ། ཨ་རི།

༤༢ བསོད་ནམས་རིན་ཆེན། སྦེལ་ལྗམ།

༤༣ གཡུང་དྲུང་དོན་ལྡན། བལ་ཡུལ།

༤༤ ཀུན་དགའ་བཀྲ་ཤིས། ཨོ་གླིང་།

༤༥ ཕུན་ཚོགས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ། སུད་སི།

༤༦ ཧེ་རུ་ཀ བལ་ཡུལ།

༤༧ བསོད་ནམས་ནོར་བུ། ཧྥ་རན་སི།

༤༨ རྡོ་རྗེ་རིན་ཆེན། སུད་སི།

༤༩ བསོད་ནམས་ཕུན་ཚོགས། སུད་སི།

༥༠ སྐལ་བཟང། སུད་སི།

༥༡ བསོད་ནམས་ལྷུན་གྲུབ། སུད་སི།

༥༢ གདུགས་རྩ་ཚང་བསྟན་འཛིན་འོད་ཟེར།

འབྲེལ་བ་ཞུ་ཡུལ་ཁ་བྱང་།

Woser Dhoktsatsang

Oberdorf 28 4314 Zeiningen Switzerland

Mail: woser8@gmail.com, bhumshul@gmail.com

Cell: +41 76 683 89 48






Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 
 

Open Letter from TNC to Election Commission, 20 Nov. 2015

posted Nov 23, 2015, 7:36 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Dec 1, 2015, 5:46 PM ]


[Tibetan version below]



November 20th, 2015

Dear Mr. Chief Election Commissioner Sonam Choephel Shosur la:

As you know, on August 26, 2015, I wrote to the Election Commission (EC) on behalf of the Tibetan National Congress (TNC), a Tibetan political party.  We requested official “recognition,” which the EC now requires for participation in the Tibetan election process without restrictions on free speech rights.  The EC announced this new rule in June 2015, just a few months before the primary vote.

In your reply to our letter, you stated that the EC has no jurisdiction on granting recognition, and that we should write to the Kashag (Cabinet) for recognition.  You did not address our key question on how the EC will ensure that the effects of its rule are fair and depoliticized while requiring a political body like the Kashag to recognize TNC.

On September 2, 2015 (Tibetan Democracy Day), at your instruction we wrote to the Kashag and personally to Sikyong Lobsang Sangay, requesting recognition – or at least an explanation why it would not be given.  Two months later, we have yet to receive any reply or acknowledgement.  With the Kashag’s refusal to even respond to our request, it appears that the EC has laid a path that leads to a locked door — or perhaps a door guarded by a party with a conflict of interest.  Since the EC apparently has no power to unlock the door, I respectfully suggest that the EC should reassess the fairness of the path.

Otherwise this rule – granting an effective veto to the incumbent Sikyong as he seeks another term – does not bode well for Tibetan democracy.  A group of esteemed Tibet supporters wrote to the Sikyong and EC that “no legitimate democratic system can allow one candidate in an election to decide which groups get to speak or spend freely in that election.”<1>  This point was reiterated by a group of election monitors, who called for “leveling the playing field of campaign finance and allowing all independent and outside the recognized groups to campaign for a candidate.”<2>  Clearly, outside groups see this system as discriminatory and unfair.

Why do we care so much about “recognition”?  Because lacking recognition, TNC has already been irreparably harmed in our ability to participate in the democratic process.  It has been like wrestling with both hands tied behind our back, while groups supporting the incumbents are unbound.  From the beginning of this election season, TNC had to negotiate candidates’ written permission before we could even issue a statement of support for them.  Every rupee or dollar we spend — even for a single poster — has to be documented and counted toward the candidates’ strict spending cap.  We have had to cancel planned travel for meetings and campaign events to avoid the candidate breaching their expense cap.

Meanwhile, “recognized” groups like NDPT and Utsang Tsokpa have been freely supporting their candidates through endorsements, fliers, banners in settlements, etc.  They do not have to account for any of their expenditures.  They have been free to spend whatever they wish to promote the incumbent candidates.

As shown by the EC’s 20% requirement amendment to the election by-laws on selecting the final Sikyong candidates (which the EC announced 2 days after the preliminary vote) the EC clearly seems to exercise significant power and discretion.  Therefore, we respectfully repeat our request for a temporary exemption to the EC’s rule requiring official recognition until such time as (i) the Kashag grants us recognition, or (ii) if the Kashag refuses us recognition, the Supreme Justice Commission rules on our appeal of such decision.

Mr. Election Commissioner, we have followed your instructions on seeking “recognition”.  Your process has led us to a dead end.  Our lack of “recognition” has already caused irreparable harm: the primary season is now over, and TNC will never recover those missed months to campaign freely.  And as the final election draws near, every passing day exacerbates the unlevel playing field we face.

Mr. Election Commissioner, we are not asking that the EC force the Kashag to do anything.  We are merely asking for the EC to grant us temporary relief from your restrictions — to treat us no differently than the “recognized” groups — since the Kashag does not appear to be inclined to respond.

Mr. Election Commissioner, you responded to the letter by the esteemed Tibet supporters by claiming that our Tibetan democracy “cannot be compared to the laws of democratic independent countries.”<3>  We respectfully urge you to reconsider this relativism.  We believe our Tibetan democracy must strive to meet the highest standards of fairness and legitimacy.  We believe the example we set in exile illustrates the moral correctness of our cause, and inspires our sisters and brothers in Tibet as to what a free Tibet could look like.

We are hopeful that you will do the fair and honorable thing, and allow TNC to be treated no differently.  That is all we ask.  This is not about any one candidate; this is about the fairness of the Tibetan election process, and ultimately upholding the precious Tibetan democracy.

Respectfully,

Jigme Ugen
President, Tibetan National Congress

1. www.tibet.org/openletter/

2. www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=36633&t=1

3. www.tibet.net/2015/10/clarification-to-the-group-of-tibet-supporters-who-have-expressed-concerns- about-the-tibetan-election-process-in-the-media-dated-13-october-2015/




Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Facebook Twitter Email Google+ Addthis









Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Facebook Twitter Email Google+ Addthis


--

REFUGEE: Rights & Issue of Deportation under Indian Legal System

posted Nov 21, 2015, 4:09 PM by The Tibetan Political Review

By Tenzin Tsering




REFUGEE: Rights & Issue of Deportation under Indian Legal System 

Introduction - During my recent visit to Dharamsala District Court to appear for Mr. Phuntsok case (a young TVC Gopalpur student arrested by police in connection with invalid RC), I had observed that the FIR has been registered by the police in a casual manner, without considering that the fact that it’s a discretion of the authority to re-new the RC even after the time lapse. Nevertheless, I was more surprised by the conduct of the Lower Court in dealing with his bail application. Ld. Judicial Magistrate Court, Dharamsala while dismissing his bail application had made very serious observation, stating that he requires to be deported. It is stated that the issue of deportation can be decided only by the authority and the Court have no business to make such observation until he is not found guilty of the offence. By making such stringent observation the Ld. Court probably missed out the fact that, the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by the Court of Law. Undoubtedly, Section 14 of the Foreign Act is complicated sections which involve continuous offence. However, there is no legislative mandate that shall appear from a reading of the Foreigners Act that a person charged with an offence under the said Act cannot apply for bail.

Definition of Refugee - The word refugee in general term means a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. It is stated that a person becomes a refugee because of he/she has left with no other option but to flee from human rights violations, socio-economic and political insecurity, generalised violence, civil war or ethnic strife all these leading to fear of persecution. The term ‘Refugee’ has a particular meaning under International Law and its legal definition is laid down in the United Nations 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (herein referred as “1951 Convention”) and its 1967 Protocol. Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as:- "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. India's law to deal with `refugees' is inchoate. Under the Indian law, there is no specific definition which defined “Refugee”. The section 3(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 defined the word "foreigner" means a person who is not a citizen of India. Further, Section 2(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 defined the word “illegal migrant”, which defined as a foreigner who has entered into India- (i) without a valid passport or other travel documents and such other documents or authority as may be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf; or (ii) with a valid passport or other travel documents and such other documents or authority as may be prescribed by or under any law in that behalf but remains therein beyond the permitted period of time. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate of Supreme Court & Constitutional Expert had points out the difference between ‘refugees’ ‘asylum seekers’ and ‘migrants’ in his book Refugee Law and Policy in India. ‘Refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’ are externally displaced persons forced out or forced to leave their countries and who cannot return because they have a well-founded fear of persecution. They are not bereft of ideas of social and economic betterment. But, they are distinct from ‘migrants’ voluntarily seeking a better life.” Currently, in India the refugees are governed by outdated Foreigners Act, 1946. The primary and most significant lacuna in this law is that it does not contain the term ‘refugee’; consequently under Indian Law, the term ‘foreigner’ is used to cover aliens temporarily or permanently residing in the country. This places refugees, along with immigrants, and tourists in this broad category, depriving them of privileges available under the Geneva Convention. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has submitted numerous reports to the Government of India urging to promulgate refugee law in India or bring amendments to the outdated Foreigners Act (1946).

Registration Certificate (RC) for Tibetans:- The Registration Certificate are issued all the non-citizen including Tibetans, who are either born in India or entered into India. Registration Certificate is a documents issued by the Government of India, which permits non-citizen including Tibetans to stays in India. It has to get it renewed every five years (earlier it used to renewed every one year). The Tibetan’s Registration Certificate are issued by the Central Government by exercising power under Section 3 of the Foreigner Act, 1946 & Section 3 of the Registration of Foreigner Act, 1939, which reads as under:- “Regulating Entry of Tibetan Nationals into India- In exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigner Act, 1946 and Section 3 of the Registration of Foreigner Act, 1939, the Central Government is pleased to direct that any foreigner of Tibetan nationality, who enters India hereafter, shall- (a) At the time of his entry into India obtain from the Officer-in-Charge of the Police post at the Indo-Tibetan frontier, a permit in the form specified in the annexed schedule; (b) Comply with such instruction as may be prescribed in the said permit; and (c) Get himself registered as a foreigner and obtain a certificate of registration.”

Ramification for Non-Renewal of Registration of Certificate- Non-renewal of Registration Certificate before the expiry date shall invite legal action against the RC holder by police authorities. Non-renewal of Registration Certificate would amount to criminal offence and such person may be book under section 14 of the Foreigner Act. There are few cases particularly from Dharamsala (HP) where the police had arrested Tibetans for failing to re-new RC and 7-8 cases of deportation of Tibetan by Local Authorities to Tibet, for not having valid RC. Many a times Courts are either reluctant or denied bail to Tibetan arrested in contravention to Section 14 of the Foreigner Act, which is a violation of fundamental right of the person arrested. The Supreme Court of India had time and again had stated that, "Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with lively concern for the cost to the individual and community. To glamorize impressionistic orders as discretionary may, on occasions, make a litigative gamble decisive of a fundamental right. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by 'law'. The denial of bail by the Court merely on the basis of being a foreign national is a violation of fundamental right of the accused person, particularly when no such distinction has been made by the Legislature under the Law. The High Court of Delhi while dealing with the similar issue in the case of Lambert Kroger vs Enforcement Directorate reported in 85 (2000) DLT 46, while allowing the bail application of the foreign national made an observation that "Admittedly the petitioner’s passport is with the respondent and ordinarily the petitioner cannot leave the country without the passport. Though the possibility of fleeing from trial may be more in the case of foreign national. It cannot be said that an accused cannot be granted bail merely because he is a foreign national. There is no law which authorizes or permits discrimination between a foreign national and an Indian national in the matter of granting bail what is permissible is that, considering the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court can impose different conditions to ensure that the accused will be available for facing trial."

International Conventions on Non- Refoulement or Repatriation of Refugee- India believes that it has always been generous towards refugees, even without being party to the 1951 Convention. India is neither party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol and even it does not have a law or policy for the protection of refugee in India. However, it continues to grant asylum to a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries viz. Tibetans, Burmese, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Afghanis etc. Though India is not a signatory to 1951 Refugee Convention nor 1967 Protocol but India is signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture on 14.10.1997 and both the convention provides non-refoulement provisions. (a) 1951 Refugee Convention- Article 33- Prohibition of expulsion or return (Refoulement)- No Contraction State shall expel or return ('refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. (b) Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel, Inhuman or Defrading Treatment or Punishment (commonly known as the United Nations Convention against Torture- Article 3 of the said Convention states that- No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Thus, the perusal of the above two provisions manifest that even if the refugee in India are not protected by 1951 Refugee Convention from Refoulement/deportation, yet the Government of India cannot deport the refugee in view of the protection given by Article 3 of the United Nations Convention against Torture being signatory to the said convention. Further, the Government of India being party to the Universal Nation Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) is also bound to protect the human right of the refugee and protect the refugee from refoulement/deportation.

India’s obligation to 1951 Refugee Convention under Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India – Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India states that the State shall endeavour to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another”. Although India is not a party to the 1951 Convention, it is bound by the International Customary Law principle of non-refoulement. Article 51 of the Constitution extends the principle of the rules of natural justice with regard to refugees being followed i.e. the refugees should not be expelled or forcibly returned in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of various grounds such as membership of a particular social group or a political opinion. The principle of "Non-Refoulement" is the principle which prevents all such expulsion or forcible return of refugees and should be followed by the Government of India in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution. Further, the Indian judiciary has also time and again ruled in favour of harmonious construction of International and Domestic law when it is consistent with fundamental rights (see Visakha vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (6) SCC 241). In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715 the Supreme Court of India held that “it is almost accepted proposition of law that the rules of Customary International Law which are not contrary to the Municipal Law shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the domestic law and shall be followed by the Courts of law”.

Human Right of Non-Citizen in India: The "Humanitarian Jurisprudence" is now an International Creed in time of Peace and War. According to Jean Picket, an authority on Humanitarian Law, "It is based on two basic principles viz. necessity and humanity.” The word Human Right is defined under Section 2(d) of the protection of Human Right Act, 1993 as; “Human rights means the rights relating to life liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by the Courts in India.” The Higher Judiciary in India has always emphasized upon the protection of non-citizen people and often directs the government agencies to follow the International obligations. In a landmark case by the Supreme Court in case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh reported in (1996) 1 SCC 742, which is now famously known as ‘Chakma case’, for the first time had enlarged the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, National Human Rights Commission approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and obtained protection for the Chakma refugee from Chittagong Hill Tracts tribal areas of Bangladesh, when their life and security was threatened by the local politicians and AAPSU leaders in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court granted relief on the basis of the rights of the aliens under Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and held that the Indian Constitution confer certain rights on every human being, may be a citizen of this country or not, which includes right of "life". Hon’ble Chief Justice of India A. M. Ahmedi, C. J. (as he then was), speaking for the Court, said:- “We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers certain rights on every human being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus, the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise.” The Supreme Court recently affirmed the said principle of right to life and liberty (Article 21) for non-citizen in its recent judgment while dealing with the case of an FIR filed by police against three Uganda nationals, where it observed that, “Article 21 of the Constitution [right to life and liberty] applies to all citizens, whether Indian or foreign nationals. Their right to liberty could not be restrained by the police due to a business dispute."

Role of Indian Judiciary for the protection of Refugee from Deportation, Refoulement or Repatriation: Refugees are often been danger of refoulement or repatriate or deportation by the India authorities when they are arrested or detained. Those who arrested for illegal stay may be detained illegally under administrative order without charges. The Foreigners Act confers the power to expel foreigners from India. It vests the Central Government with absolute and unfettered discretion and, as there is no provision fettering this discretion in the Constitution, an unrestricted right to expel remains. The non-refoulment principle is the heart of the Refugee Convention which prevents deportation to a persecuting country. The Foreigners Act allows the Indian government to refoule foreigners, including asylum-seekers, through deportation, and is therefore in violation of International Customary Law. The Supreme Court of India in Hans Muller of Nurenburg vs Superintendent, Presidency (1955 SCR (1)1284) gave "absolute and unfettered" discretion to the Government to throw out foreigners. The said judgment was again affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mr. Louis De Raedt & Ors vs Union Of India (1991 SCR (3) 149) however, at the same time, the Supreme Court in the said judgment had recognized that "foreigners" have due process rights including the right to be heard. However, it is relevant to note that the Law follows the Fact. Merely non-renewal of RC is not sufficient ground for deportation, it has to be back by fact that the deportee is involved in activities which prejudicial the security of the Country. For instant, in the case of Mohammad Sadiq Versus Government of India, the Court held that refugee can be deported on the grounds of national security. In this case, the court allowed the deportation of refugees under the Foreigners Act, 1946 if they were found indulging in activities undesirable and prejudicial to the security of India. Similar view was taken by the High Court of Delhi in Khadija Versus Union of India, where it held that International Law and Conventions cannot be applied to refugees indulging in criminal activities, and consequently, they can be repatriated the UNHCR, New Delhi for their country settlement, the Court has given a time four weeks to the Petitioner to seek asylum in a third Country.

The well-known judgment on the issue of Refuge and application of 1951 Refugee Convention in India is Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi vs Union Of India 1999 CriLJ 919, wherein the High Court of Gujarat highlighted the principle of non-refoulement and extensively pointed out the importance of this present general principle of International Law in the context of application in the municipal legal system like India. After referring Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the High Court of Gujarat held that the principle of non-refoulement prevents expulsion of a refugee where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Its application protects life and liberty of a human being irrespectively of his nationality. It is encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution, as long as the presence of refugee is not prejudicial to the law and order and security of the India. The Court further reiterated that all member nations of the United Nations including our county i.e. India is expected to respect for International treaties and conventions, concerning Humanitarian Law.

Further, the High Court of Madras in P. Nedunara v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 6708/96], the controversy was with respect to deportation of certain Sri Lankan Refugees, wherein the High Court restrained the Government from deporting refugees to Sri Lanka against their will. Even the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Writ Petition No. 1847/89], wherein the Petitioner sought direction to allow him to go to Delhi to seek political asylum from the United Nations, High Commissioner for Refugees. He also prayed that till he gets such certificate he may not be deported to Burma, where his life would be in danger. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has registered as refugee. On the facts of the case, the Court directed to release the petitioner to enable him to make an attempt to obtain political asylum. In Zothansangpuri v. State of Manipur the Guwahati High Court held that refugees have the right not to be deported if their life was in danger in the country to which he is proposed to be deported. It is stated that the reason which the court noted in the above cases is that if deported, the refugee‘s life would be in danger and the significance of these cases is that the Court noted that the refugees have a right to be protected against deportation order under International Law and also have fundamental rights under Articles 10, 21 and 22 of 82 the Constitution of India.

CONCLUSION: Thus, in light of the discussed above, I opine that when the issue of human rights of individual is involve, the Court has to take liberal view and exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction in order to protect the life and liberty of the refugee. The Court while ordering deportation of refugee must act cautiously, keeping in mind the human right of the deportee. As per my knowledge, there are 7-8 cases of Tibetans being deported by the India authorities, which is not only violation of human right but also against Customary International Law. Secondly, the Article 51 of the Constitution extends the principle of the rules of natural justice with regard to refugees being followed i.e. the refugees should not be expelled or forcibly returned in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of various grounds such as membership of a particular social group or a political opinion. The principle of "Non-Refoulement" is the principle which prevents all such expulsion or forcible return of refugees and should be followed by the Government of India in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, India may not be party to 1951 Convention but since India has accepted refugees in its State, it is deemed to be an impliedly followed 1951 Refugee Convention. Thirdly, Refugee who are denied protection by the Government of India can get refugee status from the UNHCR in a de facto system of refugee protection in India. 

***************
Submitted by author for publication on TPR   




Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 
 

‘Arbitrary’ dance of Tibetan democracy

posted Nov 9, 2015, 6:56 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Nov 9, 2015, 6:59 PM ]



By Tashi Shitsetsang

The preliminary elections of the Sikyong (Tibetan Political leader) and members of the 16th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile recently took place across the globe. I felt very excited to make use of my rights as a Tibetan Green Book holder for the first time. I was ready to finally embrace our democracy, but what awaited me was truly shocking and slightly disappointing. Heavy imputations, vague rules and regulations and arbitrary changes brought a lot of confusion and debate among the Tibetan community in exile.

Open letter to the Sikyong, Kashag and Election Commissioner

Before the elections even started, an open letter dated Oct 13, in which 27 Tibet support groups raised their concerns over the procedures of the 2016 elections, went viral. They brought up several issues, including the Election Commission (EC) turning a blind eye on the complaint ‘alleging that an incumbent candidate is violating the Election Commission’s prohibition on using official platforms for campaign purposes’.

In an interview with Voice of Tibet on October 17(i), Sonam Choephel Shosur, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) stated that the Election Commission (EC) would only investigate such cases if evidence was provided to them. Moreover, the EC responded that they could not observe all non-compliance, which, like the open letter said, ‘raises the troubling possibility of selective enforcement’.

Another topic was the provision of space for arbitrary interpretation through vague rules. When reading the electoral rules and regulations, it immediately stands out that the articles can be interpreted in several ways.

Rules on campaign expenditure

Article 25 (9a) in the electoral rules and regulations states ‘The maximum expenditure allowance for each Sikyong candidate is eight lakh Indian rupees (Rs. 800,000), whereas the maximum expenditure allowance for each MP candidate is three lakhs Indian rupees (300,000)’.[i]Although the compliance of it is nearly impossible, considering the fact that Sikyong candidates have to travel all around the world for their campaign within that budget, these limits are a good attempt for fairness and transparency.

However, certain organizations that want to financially support a candidate are free from these restrictions. The Asia Democracy Network (ADN), the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and the Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) have served as watchdogs in the recently concluded preliminary elections. In their review of the preliminaries, they raised a legitimate concern stating: “In this case, the exemption of certain recognized groups from these spending limits damaged the credibility of the campaign finance rules and unnecessarily tilted the campaign playing field towards those candidates with backing from the outside recognized groups.” The same issue was raised in the above-mentioned open letter. Their accusations are extremely severe: constraint of the right to free speech and inconsistency of human rights. On October 27, the EC published a clarification [ii] simply saying that ‘These directives of the Election Commission, do not in any way, infringe on the right to free speech, association and campaign rights of any candidate, nor do they contravene any international human rights laws’ and that they do not possess any authority to approve these particular organizations. They stated that the decision to recognize a group lies in the hands of the Kashag (Tibetan Cabinet). What makes this selection questionable is the secrecy of the criteria, which the organizations have to meet.

With the additional rule, the campaign expenditure limits serve no purpose anymore. Either, the extra rule has to be abolished to provide level playing field for all candidates or the disclosure of the criteria must be provided so that there is transparency and the Kashag’s decision is comprehensible.

In an interview with Tibet Express [iii], the CEC asserted that ‘the directive for campaign expenses was passed to raise awareness among the Tibetan people about the importance of transparency of campaign expenses during elections’. What the EC apparently is not aware of, is the importance of the implementation of all necessary measures in order to provide equal opportunities and the best possible transparency.

New 20% regulation in the Sikyong election

On October 19, the EC issued a circular number of candidates to be shortlisted for the final round of the Tibetan elections. Article 67 of the electoral rules and regulations [iv] says that the EC will not shortlist less than two Sikyong candidates for the final election. In the circular, the EC added: “However, if the vote margin between the second and third candidate is less than 20% in the preliminary election, three candidates shall be shortlisted for the final Sikyong election.” This incomprehensible new rule was not a real surprise given the fact that the EC kept quiet about the number of Sikyong candidates in the final round for a long time.

As part of the Europe tour, the CEC held a public talk in Switzerland on October 3 which I attended. The main goal of this tour was to raise awareness about the elections and their procedure. During the Q&A session [v], one of the attendees inquired whether the number of candidates for the final Sikyong round would be announced before or after the preliminaries and if it’s announced after the preliminary election, why that would be so. Sonam Choephel Shosur, as I predicted, had no straight forward answer to these questions. He explained that there would be six Sikyong candidates for the preliminary elections but he did not mention a single word about the number of Sikyong candidates to be shortlisted for the final round. Instead, in a bid to circumvent the specific question regarding the Sikyong candidates, he said ‘if there were ten Chitue seats, there would be 20 Chitue candidates for the final round. At that point I knew that issues like transparency and honesty did not matter much to the EC. I felt that, even as the first round of elections was nearing, they were still trying to fool us.

What makes one question this new 20% regulation even more is the fact that in the last elections, this rule did not exist. Tashi Wangdi, the third candidate in the previous election, was allowed to contest in the final round although the vote margin between him and Tenzin Namgyal Tethong, who stood second, exceeded 20%. In the interview with Tibet Express mentioned above, the EC explained that this rule is to ensure that the third candidate would be included if he fulfilled the given condition ‘because we found it important as it reflects people’s choice’.

What they probably did not think of is the fact that, like me, many people are now left with basically no choice for the final round because neither of the two candidates, who are likely to advance to the next round, Lobsang Sangay and Penpa Tsering, represent their opinion. Without Lukar Jam, who is likely to secure the third place in the preliminaries, the diversity of the ideology of the Tibetan people is not expressed. Furthermore, the most suspicious thing is the timing of the announcement. In an interview with Phayul [vi], Sonam Choephel Shosur said: “The declaration of the number of candidates to be shortlisted for the final election was made before the results of preliminary is announced to avoid any criticism against the EC for being biased.” If this corresponds to the truth, there is no legitimate reason left for the timing of the announcement, which was made after the first results of the preliminaries appeared online.

Although it is hard to say that this was deliberate, it is not difficult to believe that the purpose of the 20% rule is to exclude Sikyong candidate Lukar Jam from the race. Tenzin Nyinjey, Senior Researcher at the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) [vii] says : “Because, without him and his arguments for independence, there shall be no serious debate in the finals, since both likely candidates – LobsangSangay and PenpaTsering- are middle pathists.”

As a Tibetan, I have utmost pride in the establishment and existence of our government and democracy although our country is occupied by China. I am endlessly grateful to be able to vote and appreciate the Central Tibetan Administration and EC for providing us this right. I do realize that it takes time to develop our system of governance though I am skeptical about EC’s use of ‘we are an exiled community’ as an excuse to justify every dubious incidents. Tibetans living in exile circumstances is no reason to accept arbitrary decisions and live with the belief that we cannot amend our system. Precisely because we are an exiled community, we have to strive for the best democracy possible and send a strong message to China that, unlike them, we have a functional democracy in exile. All it takes for Tibetan green book holders is to make use of our rights and question unnecessary arbitrariness in our electoral system and governance in order to achieve a more liberal and transparent democracy.

--
* Tashi Shitsetsang is 19 years old and was resident of Switzerland. The member of the Tibetan Youth Association in Europe (TYAE)

--

[i]https://www.facebook.com/tchrd/posts/10153459017401678:0?__mref=message_bu bble

[ii]http://tibet.net/2015/10/clarification-to-the-group-of-tibet-supporters-who-have- expressed-concerns-about-the-tibetan-election-process-in-the-media-dated-13-october- 2015/

[iii]http://tibetexpress.net/news/tibetan-election-commission-says-cannot-implement- all-recommendations/

[iv]http://tibet.net/2015/10/announcement-regarding-final-candidates-for-2016- tibetan-general-election/

[v]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9kmRvF9B4Y

[vi]http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=36631

[vii]http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=36639





Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.:

Facebook Twitter Email Google+ Addthis

 

Tibetan Election Commission says cannot implement all recommendations

posted Nov 7, 2015, 4:16 PM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Nov 9, 2015, 6:50 PM ]


Excerpt from TibetExpress.net

Image result for tibetan election commission

Tibetan Election Commissioner and Assistant Election Commissioners

"TE : In the previous election for Kalon Tripa, there were six candidates in the preliminary round and the then Election Commission decided to allow all the six candidates to stand for the final round as the electoral rules and regulations stipulated in the Tibetan charter state that the EC could shortlist a minimum of two to maximum of six candidates to stand for the finals… What is the reason behind your decision to shortlist only two Sikyong candidates with the highest number of votes to stand for the final election this time?

EC : It is true that all the six candidates were allowed to contest in the final round of the previous election. It is the first direct elections to be held since His Holiness decided to devolve all his political authority to an elected political leader chosen by the Tibetan people. Before His Holiness expressed his wish and decided to devolve his political authority, no amendments were made to the Tibetan charter and the previous election was held before amendments were made to the Tibetan charter in May 2011. As the current election is the first time that the Tibetan people are directly choosing their political leader after the amendments were made and since we must announce at least two candidates according to the electoral rules, we have decided to shortlist only two candidates with the hope that the first political leader directly chosen by the Tibetan people wins with a sizable number of votes and truly represents the wishes of the Tibetan people.

TE : …What do you think is more important?: To make sure that the winner wins with a sizable number of votes by allowing only two candidates to contest for the final or letting the Tibetan people choose the candidates for the final and declare the candidate securing maximum number of votes as the political leader.

EC : Based on the fact that there were three candidates contesting in the final round of the previous election for Kalon Tripa and depending on the results of the preliminary election which represents the wishes of the Tibetan people, we have decided that if the difference in votes between the candidates securing second highest and third highest votes is less than 20%, the third candidate will be allowed to contest in the final round."

**************

Full version of the interview can be read at:


Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 
 

Clarification to group of Tibet supporters who expressed concerns about the Tibetan election process

posted Oct 29, 2015, 11:14 AM by The Tibetan Political Review

 
By Tibetan Election Commission


 We would like to express our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to the Tibet supporters for their continued concern for the Tibetan cause. However, we would like to make the following brief clarifications to the group of Tibet supporters who have expressed their concerns about the implementation of the CTA’s electoral rules and regulations.

The Election Commission has implemented the electoral rules adopted by the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile, especially Article 24 of the electoral rules, with utmost transparency. Section 9 of the article states, “During the elections of Sikyong and members of the Tibetan Parliament, the election commission should give clear directives as to the candidates, affix expenses limit by their supporters for campaigning, budgets and decorum of campaigning.” These directives of the election commission doesn’t in any way infringe on the right to free speech, association and campaign rights of any candidate, nor does it contravene any international human rights laws.

The Election Commission of the Central Tibetan Administration doesn’t have the authority to approve organisations in any of its statutes. The commission recognises the eleven organisations on the basis of their having been approved by the Kashag and the Tibetan Parliament before. Therefore, we hope that you will understand that we have not made any arbitrary and ad hoc decisions.

The duty of the Election Commission is to issue directives on the electoral rules and regulations, and to adjudicate in case of its violation. However, it doesn’t take suo moto cognizance, as is the norm in any function of law.

We would further seek your understanding that the rules and regulations of the Central Tibetan Administration are formulated on the basis of a refugee community, which cannot be compared to the laws of democratic independent countries.

In the future, if there are any opinions on the subject, do directly contact the concerned office instead of taking recourse to other channels.

Election Commission

26 October 2015




Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 
 

Announcement Regarding Final Candidates for 2016 Tibetan General Election

posted Oct 29, 2015, 11:08 AM by The Tibetan Political Review   [ updated Oct 29, 2015, 11:09 AM ]

 
By Tibetan Election Commission (Oct. 20, 2015)


DHARAMSHALA: The Election Commission (EC) of the Central Tibetan Administration on 19 October issued a circular announcing the number of candidates that would be shortlisted for the final general election of Sikyong and the Tibetan Parliament, scheduled for 20 March 2016.
  1. Article 49 of the Tibetan electoral rules and regulation states that the election commission should shortlist candidates not less than thrice the number of stipulated seats in the respective constituents of the Tibetan Parliament from the preliminary election. For the final election, the election commission shall shortlist twice the stipulated seats for each constituency, in addition to the voluntary candidates.
  2. Article 67 of the electoral rules and regulation states that the election commission, after giving opportunity to withdraw candidature, should shortlist not more than six candidates for Sikyong from the preliminary election and not less than two candidates for the final election. Therefore, the election commission shall shortlist two candidates for the final election of Sikyong. However, if the vote margin between the second and third candidate is less than 20% in the preliminary election, three candidates shall be shortlisted for the final Sikyong election. If two candidates poll equal highest votes in the final election, the decision as to the winner will be made then.



Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: Bookmark and Share 
 

1-10 of 810

Comments