What’s in a name? Perhaps a lot. Take, for instance, the name of Tibet’s prime minister in exile, Lobsang Sangay. In the Tibetan language, it originally means “kind-hearted lion”, which reflects his mission as the leader of the Tibetan struggle against China.
“Generally, we believe that Buddhist countries have sympathy and a supportive mindset for Tibetan people, but they have geopolitical concerns. There’s a lot of pressure from China”
Sangay’s name, however, has two meanings. “Both my date of birth and name have some confusion,” the 45-year-old democratically elected leader told Asia Focus in an interview.
“My parents were traumatised when they arrived in India as refugees,” said Sangay, who was born in a refugee community in Darjeeling in the east Indian state of West Bengal in 1968. “They didn’t remember my date of birth. So when they went to school for my admission, they wrote March 10, the date of the uprising,” he said, referring to the 1959 Tibetan uprising, which erupted in Lhasa, which had been under the effective control of the Communist Party of China since 1951.
“About 30 percent of the parents did that,” he added. “Some used July 6, the birthday of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and others just write August 15, India’s Independence Day.”
“My name has also some confusion. I write ‘Lobsang Sangay’ in English which means ‘the kind-hearted Buddha’, but in Tibetan, it is written as ‘Lobsang Sengay’, which means ‘kind-hearted lion’.”
Of course, the latter sounds more appropriate. A Buddhist icon, the lion symbolises the role of the protector of religion – as this majestic animal is known for protecting the clan from enemies. But this “lion” had to be “kind-hearted”, given that Sangay is the political successor to the Dalai Lama, who is revered across the world for his lifelong commitment to non-violence.
On Aug 8, 2011, the day Sangay officially took the oath of office, the Dalai Lama announced, “When I was young, the elderly regent Takdrag Rinpoche handed over the political power to me. Today I am handing over it to young Lobsang Sangay.”
A monk turns a prayer wheel in Dharamsala, India, the seat of the Tibetan government in exile.
And Sangay is mindful of his responsibility. On Dec 10, his office reiterated that the Tibetans remain committed to the “Middle Way” approach of the Dalai Lama, which “neither seeks separation from the People’s Republic of China nor a ‘high degree of autonomy’, but genuine autonomy for all Tibetan people under a single administration … consistent with both the National Regional Autonomy Law and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.”
While Sangay was democratically elected in April 2011, his qualifications and traits also match his responsibilities.
After graduating from a Tibetan school in Darjeeling, he went to college and earned a law degree in New Delhi. He later won a Fulbright Scholarship to Harvard Law School in Massachusetts in the United States, where he received his LL.M. degree. He also organised conferences between Chinese and Tibetan scholars at Harvard University.
Sangay left his comfortable life and a plum job at Harvard to work for the Tibetan cause for about $300 a month. And he has an uphill task before him.
Tibetans and Chinese officials do not see eye to eye on most issues. What the autonomy for Tibet should look like, the territory of a self-governing Tibet, and the migration of Han Chinese people to areas traditionally inhabited by the Tibetans, none of the issues has been resolved.
However, Sangay, an expert in Tibetan law and international human rights law, believes it is not unreasonable for China to meet their demands, which, he maintains, are within the scope of the Chinese constitution.
Students in India show images of a self-immolation in Tibet during a protest against Chinese repression in the region.
For example, on Beijing’s unwillingness to incorporate all Tibetan areas into one administrative unit, he said, “The Chinese government tries to create a scary picture – Oh, Dalai Lama and the Tibetans are seeking one-fourth of China; it’s so unreasonable. But if it’s not unreasonable to create two administrative units, for Mongolians and Uighur, why is it unreasonable when we Tibetans say that the Tibetan Plateau should have one administrative mechanism?”
Sangay added that Tibetans have been living on the Tibetan Plateau – known as the Roof of the World – for hundreds of years. “This Tibetan Plateau is not a political creation by us; it’s a rational evolution of the area.”
Asked if the Tibetans inside Tibet and those in exile are on the same page in their struggle and aspirations, Sangay said, “I think they clearly agree with us.”
The middle way approach, he said, came about after a lot of consultation, in the 1970s between the Dalai Lama and exiled Tibetan leaders, and “took into consideration political scenarios, the power of China, the interests of India, the international community and the reality in Tibet and also history”. Sources from inside Tibet were also part of the consultation, he said.
The acceptance of and reverence for the Dalai Lama are a key barometer, Sangay suggested. “Even now, songs are composed and prayers are made in support for His Holiness. They all want to see the return of the Dalai Lama in body, spirit and mind, meaning they want his body to return based on what he said and what he has in mind.”
However, since 2009, at least 124 Tibetans, mostly monks and nuns, have burned themselves apparently to draw the world’s attention to an ongoing repression in Tibetan areas. Almost all of them have said they want to see the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet, Sangay pointed out.
China has alleged that self-immolations are a result of instigation by exiled Tibetans, pointing fingers at the Dalai Lama and Sangay’s office. Sangay said that neither the Dalai Lama nor the Tibetan administration in exile want Tibetans to take any such drastic action.
Despite the numerous self-immolations, mostly by Buddhist clergy, no Buddhist country has publicly condemned the alleged repression in Tibet. Only a few Christian-majority countries have spoken out in favour of Tibet.
“Generally, we believe that Buddhist countries have sympathy and a supportive mindset for Tibetan people, but they have geopolitical concerns,” Sangay said. “There’s a lot of pressure from China.”
People from Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Sri Lanka and Thailand are supportive of the Tibetan cause, he said. “But because of these countries’ proximity to China, we have not been able to make formal visits there.”
Self-immolations have continued amid a lack of dialogue between the two sides. While China held talks with representatives of the Dalai Lama in the past, Beijing insists it will not accept the legitimacy of the office of Sangay, whom they claim is a “secessionist”, an allegation Beijing also made against the Dalai Lama.
“They are still maintaining a hardline rhetoric,” Sangay said. “But we have always said that dialogue is the only way to solve the issue of Tibet. And we still continue saying that in all our statements.”
But Beijing remains adamant. During his interaction with journalists in Belgium on Oct 22, Zhu Weiqun, head of the Committee for Ethnic and Religious Affairs of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, accused Sangay of seeking separation and derailing the talks.
So can the Tibetan issue be resolved in the near future? “Yes,” Sangay said. “Until recently, who would have thought that Aung San Suu Kyi [in Burma] would be released from house arrest?”
One difference between Sangay and Weiqun is that the Tibetan leader can clearly spell out the demands of the Tibetans without showing any sign of bitterness. On the other hand, facial expressions of Chinese officials often change when the Tibet issue is mentioned.
Shakespeare has famously, and rightly, said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” But the word “rose” sounds more suitable for this flower, just as the words “kind-hearted lion” in Sangay’s name.