Dear Chris (if I may),

I’m somewhat amused to find that I’ve touched a nerve over at the ICT office, all the more so since I didn’t say that ICT misquoted Nor-bu dgra-’dul.  Rather, I said that ICT contributed significantly to the atmosphere in which distortions of what people such as Nor-bu dgra-’dul have been saying are commonplace.  So much so that it is incumbent on everyone now to be as exact as possible with regard to the Tibetan uttered by all protesters within Tibet—lest one do them the profound insult of putting words they did not say into their mouths.  These distortions have so debased reporting on Tibet that a reporter can unabashedly write that a Tibetan who committed the absolutely terrifying act of self-immolation did so for “autonomy.”

Here’s what I said with regard to ICT:

This raises a question which has unfortunately been well-muddled by the fine folks at ICT and many others in Dharamsala for many, many years.  Early on ICT, in support of the Dalai Lama’s policies and under the direction (one has to suppose) of its director, Lodi Gyari, adopted the—how might one put this politely?—less-than-forthright policy of translating calls from inside Tibet for rang-btsan as calls for “freedom” (rang-dbang).

I made no further mention of ICT in my commentary, but I understand ICT’s consternation at any allusion to its role in creating the ongoing atmosphere of misunderstanding and/or deceptive reporting about statements made in Tibet.  If ICT itself is no longer doing this, then bravo!  But the damage has been done and the errors continue under the bylines of others.

Since ICT now seems to believe that a Tibetan calling for rang-btsan should not have his or her words distorted, and since ICT is concerned about setting the record straight, I’m happy to provide materials for the task.  Here’s an ICT flyer from the mid-1990s purporting to present Tibetan sentiments to both supporters and potential donors (I omit the flap with the donation options):


The significant portion is what is at the bottom:


And what is interesting about this is that it’s one of the few (I believe) ICT documents with a direct quote from a Tibetan political prisoner in Tibetan, followed by an English translation.  Specifically, it’s part of an appeal from Ngag-dbang phul-byung, a member of that group of political prisoners then known as the ’Bras-spungs 10.  It is altered so that his call for the restoration of Tibetan independence (rang-btsan; here elegantly written as rang-brtsan), becomes a call for the restoration of Tibetan freedom (rang-dbang).  For emphasis the distortion is repeated in the description just under the translated quote.

Since, as your letter indicates, ICT is warming to the task of setting the record straight, allow me to help by offering a modest proposal.  Perhaps ICT might start with some research into how far this particular misrepresentation has gone: how many of its posters, flyers, statements before governmental bodies, etc.—all dispensing with any Tibetan text—just flat out rendered rang-btsan as freedom over the years.  I’m sure ICT must have an archive of such documents.  (Anecdotally, I remember very well voicing a complaint about this issue back in the day to a [non-Tibetan] ICT employee and being told that it was a non-issue, that rang-btsan means “freedom.”)  More importantly, the appointed researcher might also try to assess what, if any, damage has been done by all this: how has this particular misrepresentation contributed to the demonization of those calling for rang-btsan (a category that would have to include Ngag-dbang phul-byung—at least before ICT got hold of his words) as extremists, something that likely colors Western reports even today.  And so the researcher ought also to consider how to rectify the situation.

Such an undertaking would be a lot of work, I well understand.  But it would be a major contribution to our understanding of one very important aspect of the rhetorical constructions around the Tibet Issue.

Finally, Chris, you state that I am asserting that ICT is involved in a conspiracy.  Now conspiracy can be a scary word and the desire to paint a rhetorical opponent as a conspiracy monger of some sort may be understandable on your part (it is almost Halloween, after all).  But I did not use the “c” word.  However, if you do insist on insinuating that I did or that I meant to, might I suggest that it’s best not to start your letter by stating that someone else (unnamed, of course!) has asked you to write it.  Just a suggestion, but I hope it’s helpful.

Cheers,

Elliot

P.S. I hope this hasn’t quashed my chances for next year’s Light of Truth Award!