CTA's Constitution Suppose to Protect ALL Tibetans incl DS Practitioners.

[Big Uncle]

I was browsing through the Central Tibetan Administration Website and was just looking at the constitution charter. I almost choked on my coffee when I read this (in bold):-

Constitution (http://tibet.net/about-cta/constitution/)
Charter of the Tibetans in ExileThe Charter of the Tibetans in Exile is the supreme law governing the functions of the CTA. It was drafted by the Constitution Redrafting Committee and referred to the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile for approval. The parliament, in turn, adopted the Charter on 14 June 1991.

Based on the spirit of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter guarantees to all Tibetans equality before the law and enjoyment of rights and freedom without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, language and social origin. It provides for a clear separation of power among the three organs of the administration: judiciary, legislature and executive.

Before the Charter came into being, the Central Tibetan Administration functioned roughly along the lines of the draft democratic constitution for future Tibet, promulgated by His Holiness the Dalai Lama on 10 March 1963.

Over the years, the charter was amended on a regular basis. This year, after the devolvement of political leadership by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the Charter was yet again amended accordingly to distribute the powers within the three bodies 1.e Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.

I am just shocked with the contradiction because the CTA by right, should be protecting the rights of Dorje Shugden practitioners who are ostracized for their religious beliefs. You know what, any Dorje Shugden practitioner can take this to court and sue the CTA for not upholding its own constitution. There are already plenty of video evidence on YouTube and if you are in the Tibetan community, there's even more evidence with notices, letters and so on. This is just another reason why CTA should be moving towards lifting the ban. It's own constitution is at odds with the Dorje Shugden ban! They must abolish it.

[vajratruth]

That is a very good point Big Uncle.

Not only does the CTA's ban on Dorje Shugden practice represent a sick joke on itself,  it also makes the biggest dent on the CTA's credibility vis-a-vis the Tibetan Constitution that calls for the prevention of the very crime that the CTA is the perpetrator of. CTA should change its name to Central Tibetan Mafia already.

Even if we forget about the Tibetan Constitution because frankly right now everything the CTA declares has the same value as a small plastic soap dish, the way the CTA oppress practitioners of Shugden is also squarely against the Indian Constitution and surely Indian Law must apply because these events take place on Indian soil. Imagine this, the very office that implements a law that is against the Indian Constitution and the UN Charter is being protected by the Indian Government.

If there is no value in suing the CTA for their crimes against humanity, perhaps it makes better sense to sue the Indian Government for harboring an organized crime syndicate which the CTA really is, in the way it institutionalize acts that denies people their freedom and safety.
The Indian government regarded the Dalai Lama and the first waves of exiled Tibetans as refugees and granted them legal asylum. They were allotted land and housing. More importantly, these refugees were automatically given a Registration Certificate (RC). According to the CTA, the RC is a legal document issued by the Indian authorities that allows Tibetan refugees “the right to enjoy all the privileges enjoyed by any Indian citizen except the right to vote and work in Indian government offices” (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2009).

So why isn't the Indian Government protecting Shugden practitioners' right to practice without fear of harm. Does not the right to enjoy privileges extend also to protection from oppressive and criminal acts inflicted on a person because of his belief and religion?

[Big Uncle]

Dear Vajratruth,

No point going to the Indian Government. The earlier court case that the Dorje Shugden society against the Central Tibetan Administration and the Dalai Lama was dismissed. Can you believe that? With so much evidence and the Indian government just says that the case is dismissed because the allegations is vague averments. Check out the article published on the CTA site:-

Delhi High Court Dismisses Dorjee Shugden Devotees’ Charges [Wednesday, 20 April 2010, 9:57 a.m.]http://tibet.net/2010/04/21/delhi-high-court-dismisses-dorjee-shugden-devotees-charges/

Dharamshala:In response to the allegations of harassment and maltreatment filed by the Dorjee Shugden Devotees’ Charitable and Religious Society against the Central Tibetan Administration and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the High Court of Delhi dismissed their writ petition and application.

In an order dated April 5, 2010, Justice S. Muralidhar dismissed the writ petition and application on the grounds that the allegations of violence and harassment were ‘vague averments’ and that the raised issues ‘do not partake of any public law character and therefore are not justiciable in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.’

Citing the ‘absence of any specific instances of any such attacks’ on Dorjee Shugden practitioners, the Court noted the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents, referring to ‘an understanding reached whereby it was left to the monks to decide whether they would want to be associated with the practices of Dorjee Shugden.’

Closing the doors on the possibility of similar complaints in the future, Justice Muralidhar concluded that the ‘matters of religion and the differences among groups concerning propitiation of religion, cannot be adjudicated upon by a High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.’

[dsiluvu]

Citing the ‘absence of any specific instances of any such attacks’ on Dorjee Shugden practitioners, the Court noted the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents, referring to ‘an understanding reached whereby it was left to the monks to decide whether they would want to be associated with the practices of Dorjee Shugden.’

Closing the doors on the possibility of similar complaints in the future, Justice Muralidhar concluded that the ‘matters of religion and the differences among groups concerning propitiation of religion, cannot be adjudicated upon by a High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.’

It is as though the monks were given a choice!

Perhaps these accounts would refresh their memory...

In March 1996 the controversy became visible to the outside world by the Dalai Lama's public announcement that worship of Shugden should be abandoned, and that individuals who did not want to give up this practice should refrain from getting teachings and initiations from him.

In the following months campaigns were initiated by CTA and the major Tibetan NGOs to "make His Holiness the Dalai Lama's advice clear to all Tibetans living across India".[26] During this campaign the waves of the controversy got choppy for the first time, and there were reports of crowds getting out of hand, menacing letters, berufsverbot, forced signature campaigns and house-to-house searches carried out by Tibetan NGOs - all targeted against Shugden devotees. On May 23rd The Dorje Shugden Devotees Charitable and Religious Society (SDCRS) was registered in Delhi.[27] On June 6th the Tibetan Parliament in Exile passed a resolution siding clearly with the Dalai Lama's stance - especially concerning personnel in governmental and monastic institutions - but stressing that it was ultimately a personal matter in which harassment should not take place.[27]

In the same resolution they denied allegations of imposing a berufsverbot and other charges put against them. As time passed the Dalai Lama kept speaking out against Shugden and various initiatives were taken by the major monastic communities to heed his advice.

Does this sound like it was left to the monks and Tibetans to decide whether they would want to be associated with the practices of Dorjee Shugden?

[dsiluvu]

I came across this site and this is an interesting point of view from a 3rd party analysing this whole Dorje Shugden controversy. It is interesting to read what he has to say.... and what he has concluded up to this date. He too has observed some "loose" structure in the Tibetan's/CTAs democracy system which would be their own shortcomings...


Conclusion
by Klaus Löhrer
Tibetology
Department of Cross-cultural and Regional Studies
University of Copenhagen


By means of this paper I hope to have substantiated the claim that there are various issues in the Shugden controversy that may prove interesting when dealing with a more detailed understanding of the democratization-process in the Tibetan diaspora. Despite the overall spiritual nature of this controversy, arguments pertaining to democratic values seem to have crept into the debate on various levels, indicating that such a matter, in a modern-day society, should not only observe traditional religious rules but also be in line with principles of modern governance. Moreover both parties in the controversy invoke democratic values and seem to take great care not to overstep the fine line of what is acceptable in democratic societies when putting forth their arguments. Even though some of these arguments bear traces of thinking along Tibetan traditionalist lines, I think we can safely say that the debate bears witness to a dispersion of democratic values into fields previously unaffected by these values.

Some of the democratic shortcomings of Tibetan exile governance are, however, also highlighted in this controversy. The obvious undemocratic nature of the Dalai Lama institution has been noted by many, not least the current Dalai Lama himself. Despite this fact, it seems that the legitimacy of this institution, or the current Dalai Lama himself, is only rarely questioned by Tibetans wronged by its authority and that the invocation of democratic legitimacy pertaining to the Dalai Lama institution has mostly been put forth by associations residing in the West.

So far the usual ways of settling disputes in democratic societies have not been tried. It seems to me that if the democratic transition of CTA should be more than just a name, the institutional trouble-shooters of democratic governance could do with some hands-on experience in order to mature. It may be that the implications of the Shugden controversy are at the moment too big for institutions such as The Supreme Justice Commission, but we may hope that one day Tibetan government institutions will be able to stand alone and take important decisions without guidance by, or possibly even contradicting, the Dalai Lama.

Finally the Shugden controversy may also be seen as revealing a "blind spot" in the traditional democracy and civil-rights framework, since such a framework remains somewhat unable to cope with the devotion of the Tibetan people towards the Dalai Lama, the mix of politics and religion and the "loose" structure of the Tibetan community. So much the more reason for the Tibetans to find a form of governance which is at the same time democratic in nature and a reflection of Tibetan values and identity.

http://info-buddhism.com/Pluralism_the_Hard_Way_Klaus_Loehrer.html

[michaela]

Based on the spirit of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter guarantees to all Tibetans equality before the law and enjoyment of rights and freedom without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, language and social origin. It provides for a clear separation of power among the three organs of the administration: judiciary, legislature and executive.

When I read this constitution as put forth by the Big Uncle.  It crossed my mind that perhaps the problem is CTA does not recognize DS worship as "religion"?  They consider it as spirit worship.  Maybe the term "Religion" should be changed to "Faith"? 

[DharmaSpace]

I still strongly feel that the current CTA administration can really do something to put themselves in a better and brighter light. The protests that were organized by NKT is not exactly pitting the non Tibetans against the Tibetans, it so happen that the Tibetans who are on the side challenging the ban, mostly were in the process of rebuilding their institutions, the monks of Shar Gaden and Serpom are worthy of salute as in a relatively short time they have been able to get these institutions running again. If memory serves me well when the Dorje Shugden chapel at Gaden Shartse was functional many sponsors from laity were making offerings to the protector only now they proclaim they have given up the practice.
 
Sad that one of the oldest and biggest democracies in the world refuses to make a stand against tyranny and oppression.

[Big Uncle]

Based on the spirit of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter guarantees to all Tibetans equality before the law and enjoyment of rights and freedom without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, language and social origin. It provides for a clear separation of power among the three organs of the administration: judiciary, legislature and executive.

When I read this constitution as put forth by the Big Uncle.  It crossed my mind that perhaps the problem is CTA does not recognize DS worship as "religion"?  They consider it as spirit worship.  Maybe the term "Religion" should be changed to "Faith"?

I honestly don't think that there's that much of a difference because the CTA recognizes Bon, the indigenous faith of the Tibetans that worships powerful mountain gods and so forth. If they can recognize that as a religion, why can't they recognize Dorje Shugden? Bon worships spirits and all that as well. If they want to consider Dorje Shugden as a spirit, then they can easily draw similarities between the Bon and Dorje Shugden practitioners. 

That's the biggest dichotomy here. But that's the main issue of the CTA, they can't even uphold their own constitution that promises protection for ALL Tibetans, so how can they uphold the rulings of the Chinese government if they ever gain back power over the Tibetan state? Through logical basis, I have shown you how the Tibetans will never regain Tibet. The Chinese will never take the Tibetan seriously because of this religious ban. Perhaps, this ban is deliberate so the Chinese will take the side of Dorje Shugden just to sideline the CTA and the Dalai Lama.

I am sure it is not in the intentions of the Chinese to propagate anything spiritual but the situation arose in this manner to sideline the Tibetan 'separatists' and that, they would fully embrace. We can see that happening in smaller scales and in rural areas with the local government support of Dorje Shugden monasteries and all.