Behind Dalai Lama's holy cloak

He’s not quite the saint that his PR makes him out to be. Former tyrant, CIA agent, guerilla leader, nepotist…

THE Dalai Lama show is set to roll into Australia again next month and again Australian politicians are getting themselves in a twist as to whether they should meet him.

Rarely do journalists challenge the Dalai Lama.

Partly it is because he is so charming and engaging. Most published accounts of him breeze on as airily as the subject, for whom a good giggle and a quaint parable are substitutes for hard answers. But this is the man who advocates greater autonomy for millions of people who are currently Chinese citizens, presumably with him as head of their government. So, why not hold him accountable as a political figure?

**No mere spiritual leader, he was the head of Tibet’s government when he went into exile in 1959. It was a state apparatus run by aristocratic, nepotistic monks that collected taxes, jailed and tortured dissenters and engaged in all the usual political intrigues. **(The Dalai Lama’s own father was almost certainly murdered in 1946, the consequence of a coup plot.)

**The government set up in exile in India and, at least until the 1970s, received $US1.7 million a year from the CIA.

The money was to pay for guerilla operations against the Chinese**, notwithstanding the Dalai Lama’s public stance in support of non-violence, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA’s payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $US15,000 a month ($US180,000 a year).

The funds were paid to him personally, but he used all or most of them for Tibetan government-in-exile activities, principally to fund offices in New York and Geneva, and to lobby internationally.

Details of the government-in-exile’s funding today are far from clear. Structurally, it comprises seven departments and several other special offices. There have also been charitable trusts, a publishing company, hotels in India and Nepal, and a handicrafts distribution company in the US and in Australia, all grouped under the government-in-exile’s Department of Finance.

The government was involved in running 24 businesses in all, but decided in 2003 that it would withdraw from these because such commercial involvement was not appropriate.

Several years ago, I asked the Dalai Lama’s Department of Finance for details of its budget. In response, it claimed then to have annual revenue of about $US22 million, which it spent on various health, education, religious and cultural programs.

The biggest item was for politically related expenditure, at $US7 million. The next biggest was administration, which ran to $US4.5 million. Almost $US2 million was allocated to running the government-in-exile’s overseas offices.

For all that the government-in-exile claims to do, these sums seemed remarkably low.

It is not clear how donations enter its budgeting. These are likely to run to many millions annually, but the Dalai Lama’s Department of Finance provided no explicit acknowledgment of them or of their sources.

Certainly, there are plenty of rumours among expatriate Tibetans of endemic corruption and misuse of monies collected in the name of the Dalai Lama.

Many donations are channelled through the New York-based Tibet Fund, set up in 1981 by Tibetan refugees and US citizens. It has grown into a multimillion-dollar organisation that disburses $US3 million each year to its various programs.

Part of its funding comes from the US State Department’s Bureau for Refugee Programs.

Like many Asian politicians, the Dalai Lama has been remarkably nepotistic, appointing members of his family to many positions of prominence. In recent years, three of the six members of the Kashag, or cabinet, the highest executive branch of the Tibetan government-in-exile, have been close relatives of the Dalai Lama.

An older brother served as chairman of the Kashag and as the minister of security. He also headed the CIA-backed Tibetan contra movement in the 1960s.

A sister-in-law served as head of the government-in-exile’s planning council and its Department of Health.

A younger sister served as health and education minister and her husband served as head of the government-in-exile’s Department of Information and International Relations.

Their daughter was made a member of the Tibetan parliament in exile. A younger brother has served as a senior member of the private office of the Dalai Lama and his wife has served as education minister.

The second wife of a brother-in-law serves as the representative of the Tibetan government-in-exile for northern Europe and head of international relations for the government-in-exile. All these positions give the Dalai Lama’s family access to millions of dollars collected on behalf of the government-in-exile.

The Dalai Lama might now be well-known but few really know much about him. For example, contrary to widespread belief, he is not a vegetarian. He eats meat. He has done so (he claims) on a doctor’s advice following liver complications from hepatitis. I have checked with several doctors but none agrees that meat consumption is necessary or even desirable for a damaged liver.

What has the Dalai Lama actually achieved for Tibetans inside Tibet?

If his goal has been independence for Tibet or, more recently, greater autonomy, then he has been a miserable failure.

He has kept Tibet on the front pages around the world, but to what end? The main achievement seems to have been to become a celebrity. Possibly, had he stayed quiet, fewer Tibetans might have been tortured, killed and generally suppressed by China.

In any event, the current Dalai Lama is 72 years old. His successor — a reincarnation — will be appointed as a child and it will be many years before he plays a meaningful role. As far as China is concerned, that is one problem that will take care of itself, irrespective of whether or not John Howard or Kevin Rudd meet the current Dalai Lama.

Re: Behind Dalai Lama’s holy cloak

As a response to the above from the same source

In his recent column (“Behind Dalai Lama’s holy cloak”, 23/5), Michael Backman chastised journalists for not challenging the Dalai Lama. In doing so, he resorted to questionable journalistic standards by accusing the Dalai Lama of nepotistic and non-democratic behaviour based on “hard facts” that are either manipulated to sensationalise his case or are downright wrong.
Backman alleges that the Dalai Lama advocates greater autonomy for millions of people who are now “Chinese citizens, presumably with him as head of their government”. The fact is just the opposite.
In July 1981, then Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang announced “China’s Five-point Policy towards the Dalai Lama”, urging the Dalai Lama to return so he “will enjoy the same political status and living conditions as he had before 1959”. The Dalai Lama rejected the offer and stated that the issue was not his own position in Tibet, but the welfare of 6 million Tibetans.
In 1992, the Dalai Lama categorically declared that he would not hold any official position in the government of future Tibet. Rather, he would hand over his traditional authority to an elected leader of Tibet and “serve the people as an individual outside the government”.
It is a fact that the traditional government of Tibet was unegalitarian and inefficient. However, when the Dalai Lama was enthroned to be the leader in 1950, he was merely 15 years old, and faced the daunting task of handling the invasion and occupation of Tibet by Communist China. In exile, as part of an anti-Communist campaign, it is true that the American Government supported the Khampa guerilla resistance force till early 1970s.
However, it is not true that the Dalai Lama was “personally” paid $US15,000 a month by the CIA. As it is the case today, he was kindly hosted by the Indian Government as an “honoured guest”. The fund was not even part of the budget of the Tibetan government in exile. In actuality, the main source was not the CIA, but fulfilment of a pledge made by US ambassador to India Loy Henderson in 1951.
On the advocacy of non-violence, the fact is that the Dalai Lama sent an emotional appeal on audio tape to the Tibetan guerillas in early 1970s, telling them to disarm. This message demoralised many of the fighters, and a few even committed suicide. Soon after that message from the Dalai Lama, the camp disbanded.
The budget of the Tibetan government in exile totals approximately $US20 million ($A24 million). It is openly debated in yearly Tibetan parliament budgetary sessions for two weeks, and allocated transparently. Compared with other refugee groups, the Tibetan government in exile is arguably the most efficient and effective in providing service to 130,000 Tibetan refugees with such limited budget. Still, the general impression is that the Dalai Lama must be raising millions of dollars.
On the contrary, strict rules apply to the Dalai Lama’s visits abroad that these cannot be used for fund-raising purposes. During his trip to Australia, as is true everywhere, his organisers are instructed to charge fees only to cover the actual expenses of the event. More impressively, the Dalai Lama does not charge even a penny for speaking fees. He speaks for free so that he will be accessible to as many people as possible.
Perhaps the most irresponsible reporting in the column is the accusation that the Dalai Lama “has been remarkably nepotistic, appointing members of his family to many positions of prominence”, like many Asian politicians.
The facts are as follows: as per his specific instruction, a provision was introduced in the Tibetan constitution of 1963 and the Charter of 1991 that the Dalai Lama can be impeached by the parliament.
From 1960 to 1990, the Dalai Lama had the sole constitutional power to appoint exiled Tibet’s cabinet ministers, heads of departments, and members of parliament.
He never appointed anyone from his family as ministers, parliamentarians or heads of departments. Only his brother-in-law served as the head of the Security Department and his elder brother headed a fledgling start-up (the Tibetan Medicine Institute). As a matter of fact, from 1978 to 1986, the Gayong Mimang Tsokcheng, the highest decision-making body, discussed and consistently recommended that the Dalai Lama appoint his elder brother Gyalo Thondup as the Prime Minister. Each time, the Dalai Lama declined.
In 1991, as part of democratic reforms, the Dalai Lama delegated the power to appoint the cabinet to the parliament, which since 1960 has been directly elected by the people.
Ironically, the parliament began to elect members of his family, and the most high-profile was his elder brother Gyalo as the Prime Minister.
The elder brother played a key role in seeking US Government support in 1950s-60s, and paradoxically he was also instrumental in opening a dialogue with the Chinese Government in the early 1980s.
Nonetheless, he is controversial partly because of his autocratic personality.
Not surprisingly, Gyalo was eased out without completing his term as the Prime Minister, partly because of his incapability to cope with a democratic-environment-in-exile polity.
In 2000, another reform was instituted by the Dalai Lama, requiring exile Tibetans to directly elect their Prime Minister with full administrative power except in dealing with China.

Tibetans in 27 countries voted on a single day, with more than 80 per cent electing Professor Samdhong Rinpoche as the first Prime Minister. He didn’t appoint any member of the Dalai Lama’s family to his cabinet. In the parliament, only a nephew was elected as an ordinary member among 46 parliamentarians and he faced disciplinary action for violating parliamentary rules and regulations.
Clearly, the experience of the Dalai Lama’s family in the nascent Tibetan democratic system reflects that they don’t necessarily get a free ride.
More importantly, the Dalai Lama never appointed his family members to positions of influence, even when he was permitted to do so (1960-90) and those who did were elected by the parliament.
The truth, then, is far removed from Backman’s claim that the Dalai Lama “appointed” his family members to positions of prominence.
Finally, Backman’s suggestion that had the Dalai Lama “stayed quiet”, possibly “fewer Tibetans might have been tortured, killed and generally suppressed by China” sounds comically naive and hypocritical.
Firstly, between 1960 and 1972, when the Dalai Lama was “quiet” and never ventured outside of India, Tibet went through brutal suppression under China, when thousands of people perished.
From 1973 to 1986, the Dalai Lama made limited trips abroad, but suppression continued.
From 1987 to 2007, when the Dalai Lama made the most trips abroad and finally put Tibet in the international map, Backman suggests he keep quiet.
It is hypocritical to suggest the Dalai Lama refrain from speaking out for the welfare of 6 million Tibetans when Backman himself speaks out and writes columns and books to pay his rent and put food on his table.
Last time I checked, free speech is universal. It is noble to speak for millions of suffering people, and especially to speak out against authoritarian regimes.
It is certainly not just the privilege of the few to make a living by criticising others.
Dr Lobsang Sangay is a scholar on Tibet at the law school of Harvard University.