At no other point of time in our history have we been more confused about our national goal as we are today. This is a sad commentary on the political consciousness and maturity of the exile Tibetans. With our emotions daily tested to the limit by continuing reports of Chinese atrocities in Tibet and the humiliating conditions of statelessnes in which we are compelled to live in exile, one would have thought that no people in this world would be more politically charged, resolved and determined than us.

The sad fact is that through nearly two generations of living in exile, Tibetans have never been known to want to assume any great responsibility for their national political life and destiny. ‘Whatever His Holiness decides is correct and we will follow it,’ has been the national political as well as religious mantra. Every time the Dalai Lama says that the Tibetans should decide their national affairs by a certain specified democratic means, the ball has been promptly hurled back at him. We simply do not want the Dalai Lama to tell us to do things - for we have not resolved not to do them - but but we want him to do them for us. Unwittingly, we are vindicating the communist Chinese assertion that the so-called Tibet independence campaign does not enjoy popular support and that it is designed only to restore the old theocratic and feudal serf system that characterised the pre-1951 Tibet. Indeed, given our attitude towards democratisation so far, the Chinese cannot be said to be too far off the mark, their perverted justification for saying it notwithstanding.

But whether the Tibetans like it or not, the Dalai lama has made up his mind, having gone as far as to repeatedly state on record that he would not hold any position of power in future Tibet’s political set up. It is time we wake up to this reality. Unless we can put in place a firm democratic foundation and system of rule of law when there is still the opportunity, Tibet, whether independent or autonomous or in exile, will be gripped by anarchy and become a play field for self-seeking communal elements. As a matter of fact, the exile tibetan polity today is highly communal in orientation. Everything has to be done from narrow parochial point of view of ‘fair’ representation of provinces and sects, thereby sacrificing efficiency. The result is all-round demoralisation and political stagnation. There is very little room for dynamism and the development of Tibetan national spirit in such a scenario.

On 11 May 1990, when the Dalai Lama dissolved the comunally based exile parliament, he gave various suggestions for reconstituing it along a more democratically oriented line. It turned out to be a suggestion in futility. We were handed a parliament that was totaly communally based, save for three seats to represent Tibetans in Europe and the Americas and ‘up to three’ seats to be filled by the Dalai Lama’s nomination.

In the light of these facts, the proposed Tibetan referendum has come as the most radical idea yet emanating from the Dalai Lama in his thus far only minimally successful attempt to democratise to the middle-way approach, he has in effect invited the Tibetans to overrule him through the democratic process of a referendum.

There is no denying the fact that the middle-way approach represents the most compassionate and altruistic approach to resolving the Tibetan issue with the Chinese Government. As a pre-eminent practising Buddhist master no one can expect anything less from the Dalai Lama. It is also entirely within the realm of his spiritual being to have faith in the basic, innate goodness of human beings which will ultimately lead to good sense prevailing over the Chinese government regime.

The dilemma of the ordinary Tibetan people on the street is that while they are convinced that nothing good will come of the middle-Way Approach - inasmuch as China has gone to the extend of even ridiculing it - they do not want to take a road that diverges from the one to which the Dalai Lama is professedly commited. Many materialistically driven proponents of the Middle Way approach do not have any reasonof their own for following it other than the fact that the Dalai Lama advocates it. One suspects that the real reason is this does not require them to do anything but to leave the affairs of the Tibetan state’s political destiny in the safe hands of the Dalai Lama.

I do not think the Dalai Lama has been asking the Tibetan public all these years to democratise themselves with the view only that they should disempower him thereby. He has minced no words in saying that relying on one person, the Dalai Lama, is dangerous for the survival of the Tibetan national identity because of the particulary difficult situation in Tibet today. He also said recently that independence is our right and those commited to it should fight for it. Tibetans should therefore have no hesitation in pursuing a course of action they feel right and justified for the greater good of their nation. It would only mean contributing one’s mite to save the Tibetan nation, which is what the Dalai Lama’s call for democratisation really means.