|
|
 |
|
|
This archive contains articles dated January 11, 2000 only; click here to go to current articles |
|
|
|
January 11 |
-AP/NYT -
AP/NYT1/11/00 |
The AP reports that Taft's official title is "Assistant U.S. Secretary of State," and that her trip to Dharamsala
will involve a visit to Tibetans there "as part of her job to investigate the conditions of refugees and migrants." Elsewhere, the AP reports on the Chinese press briefing regarding religious influences
in China. At the conference, " Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao advised India to keep in mind relations between the two neighbors when dealing with the Karmapa, but stopped short of warning India
against granting asylum to the 14-year-old. He noted that India has recognized Beijing's control over Tibet and promised not to let the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled leader, engage in political activities
there." Full text of the articles are available here
and here. |
-BBC audio -
BBC1/11/00 |
Duncan Hewitt of the BBC in Beijing has a somewhat different perspective on the Chinese statement about the potential
consequences of India's granting asylum to the Karmapa, stating in his radio report that in comparison to other Chinese statements, it was a muted response. China made no "explicit demands" for repatriation,
and "stopped short of demanding" that India refuse to grant the Karmapa asylum. Hewitt observes that though his departure was a "shock" to the Chinese government, they continue to take a subdued position on
the issue, asserting only that the Karmapa has left the country to obtain "sacred headgear" and other objects from India. In an accompanying article, the BBC has a picture of Gyuto Monastery, where the
Karmapa is rumored to have relocated. Full text
of the article. |
-Telegraph1/11/99 |
David Graves of the Telegraph
writes from Dharamsala that, contrary to official denials, US envoy Julia Taft was meeting with Indian officials regarding the Karmapa. Graves writes that "Officials accompanying her said India had a 'long and distinguished' record of granting refuge to Tibetans fleeing Chinese rule and America 'saw no reason why this honourable record should change in relation to the Karmapa'."
Graves continues: "Earlier, Miss Taft met Indian Foreign Ministry officials in New Delhi to discuss the future of the Karmapa, who is the spiritual leader of five million Kagyu Buddhists worldwide. A
decision on whether to grant asylum is expected this week. It is expected that Washington would grant sanctuary to the Karmapa if India refused, although US officials said they considered that 'very
unlikely.'" Graves article also contains inaccuracies circulating in the press regarding Rumtek Monastery, in Sikkim, the exile seat of the Sixteenth Karmapa for over a decade until his death. We have
commented upon this before. Rumtek is the main seat of the Kagyu order in India, and while Tsurphu, the seat in Tibet, remained inaccessible to Kagyu hierarchs, Sikkim became the main seat for the Kagyu
order worldwide, which, according to Graves in the article, counts 5,000,000 adherents worldwide. (This sort of calculation probably significantly undercounts China, but we leave that for another day.)
Rumtek is the central location of the Kagyu order outside Tibet. Given Graves' report on the eminent crackdown on the Karmapa's seat in Tibet, Rumtek would typically revert to being the main seat of the
Kagyu order. The main inaccuracy circulating in the press is the assertion that the Kagyu monastic seat in India is in the control of a "rival faction." It is up to the press to determine whether
this assertion is true, but despite having circulated for some time, there appears to be no factual substantiation for the claim. As the report in the Times of India article of today
shows, sources in Sikkim and at the monastery indicate that a rival anti-Karmapa group is seeking to create the impression that the faction has control over the monastery, even though it does not. One may posit that creating this impression creates a false belief among members of the faction outside India that their leaders have a certain legitimacy. By sowing discord in the area, they may also seek to prevent the Karmapa from taking his seat there, and thus undermine the Karmapa's authority. If the anti-Karmapa group's claim can be substantiated, it should of course be reported. But repeating the claim without verifying it could effectively transform the independent press into an ally of the anti-Karmapa faction.
Full text
. |
-
South China Morning Post -South China Morning Post1/11/00 |
The SCMP reports that India's Asian Age
wrote yesterday that "the Dalai Lama had requested Indian asylum for the Karmapa Lama when he met Indian Foreign Ministry and Home Ministry officials at the weekend in Dharamsala, the headquarters of his government-in-exile." The SCMP also noted that US officials at the US embassy in Delhi had denied that Julia Taft's visit to Dharamsala was involved with the Karmapa. Full text of the
former and latter
articles. |
-Times of India1/11/00 |
In its breaking news section, the Times of India has two short pieces of importance. The Times
quotes Foreign ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao as "warning India" that "any political asylum granted to the Karmapa Rimpoche would violate the 'five principles of peaceful co-existence' which form the basis of bilateral relations between New Delhi and Beijing.
In a second newsbrief, the Times
picks up statements from Dharamsala pointing out the problems with terms being used by the media without investigation which are causing press inaccuracies. One inaccurate term complained of is "living buddha", which according to the
Times source was a derogatory term coined by the Chinese government. (See our
earlier comments on the doubtful accuracy of the term). The other point criticized by those with knowledge of Tibetan history is
the press tendency to characterize the Karmapa as the "third highest lama" in Tibet, and similar attempts to put the Karmapa and other lamas into one hierarchy. There is no single hierarchy of lamas, or
Rinpoches, in Tibet; it is misleading, then, to characterize the Karmapa in such a way. In particular, the notion of lineage plays a specific role in Tibetan culture which results in a multiplicity of
spiritual hierarchies. See our earlier comments on hierarchy and lineage. Full text of the Times briefs. |
-Indian Express1/11/00 |
The Express's Jyoti Malhotra has an unusual piece comparing the reaction of the Indian government to the entry into India
of the Karmapa with the reaction of the Nehru government to the entry of His Holiness the Dalai Lama into India in 1959. It is unclear whether the intent of the piece is to remind the government of Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's recognition of the 'long tradition of cultural and religious' ties that continue to exist between India and Tibet, or to diminish the importance of the Karmapa by
comparison. The Express also speculates on the three options available to the government regarding any potential immigration request by him. Full text. |
-Hindustan Times1/11/00 |
Apratim Mukarji reports that, should the Indian government receive an asylum request from
the Karmapa, there are three possibilities open to the Indian government: to grant asylum, to deny it and deport him, or to deny asylum but not deport him, instead granting him refugee status. Mukarji says
that it is unlikely that the government will grant asylum because of its wish to avoid angering China, but equally unlikely that it will deport the Karmapa. Hence he believes the government will grant
refugee status. The Indian press also reports that the government is concerned about allowing the Karmapa to go to Sikkim because the anti-Karmapa faction there has threatened to protest such a visit. The
Indian government's position is on this matter has not been reported. However, it is undisputed that the headquarters of the Sixteenth Gyalwa Karmapa was in Sikkim. Given the press coverage, it will be
interesting to watch international world-wide reaction to any decision by India to preclude the Karmapa from staying in Rumtek, particularly if it appears that government is giving into external or internal
pressures. Full text. |
-Times of India 1/11/00 |
The Times of India Jagdish Bhatt in Tight Security For Karmapa
surveys the issues and also does some good initial investigative reporting on tensions within the Kagyu order of Tibetan Buddhism which had earlier been inaccurately reported in the Indian press. Regarding the breaking issues surrounding the Karmapa's entry into India, he writes that Indian police officials have commented publicly about arrangements being made to increase security for the Karmapa; that the US and Indian government continued to deny that US envoy Julia Taft, beginning her visit to Delhi and Dharamsala, was tasked with the Karmapa matter; and that government spokesmen claimed that the Karmapa had not officially asked for asylum. Despite this denial, the
Times contended that "efforts were on to get political asylum for the Karmapa in India, at least till the time he took a decision on his future plans."Bhatt provides some of solid reporting on
issues involving Rumtek Monastery in Sikkim, which the Times termed as "the headquarters-in-exile of Tibetan Buddhism's most prominent sect, the Karma Kargyu school." Noting the earlier-reported claims by
Shamarpa Rinpoche that "the defection of Karmapa Ugyen Trinley Dorjee is a 'political ploy in agreement with the Chinese government,'" Bhatt's report begins some long-overdue independent investigation by the
press into the basis of Shamarpa's attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the Karmapa. Although the Indian press has previously reported without scrutiny that Shamarpa was the "second in line" of the
Kagyu order behind the Karmapa, and was traditional caretaker of Rumtek Monastery with current authority over the monastery, Bhatt noted that the validity of those claims are in doubt. The Shamarpa is said
to have no current authority over Rumtek monastery. Moreover, the authorities in Sikkim interviewed for the story stated that despite Shamarpa's claim that historically he held such a position, the record
indicated that the office of the Shamarpa had been abolished some decades earlier (see below
). Further, they pointed out that another lama, known as the Gyaltsap Rinpoche, was for centuries considered the caretaker of the Karmapa's monastery. These
issues are not settled, but it is clear that the Times does a valuable service in beginning to scrutinize the claims of Shamar Rinpoche.
Full text of the article is at The Times of India website. |
January 10 |
|
Click
here to go to the news archive containing references to articles
on His Holiness the Gyalwa Karmapa dated January 10, 2000
|
January 9 |
Click here to go to the news archive containing references to articles
on His Holiness the Gyalwa Karmapa dated January 9, 2000 |
January 8 |
Click here to go to the news archive containing references to articles
on His Holiness the Gyalwa Karmapa dated January 8, 2000 |
January 7 |
Click here to go to the news archive containing references to articles
on His Holiness the Gyalwa Karmapa dated January 7, 2000 |
|
|
