posted Mar 28, 2012, 6:29 PM by The Tibetan Political Review
updated Mar 28, 2012, 6:37 PM
I am writing this piece in partial connection to the respondent (Sandu Namkha, Germany) of my last two pieces, Reinventing the Art of Protest and UN Support for Tibet: Are Tibetans Unrealistically Optimistic?, published in the Tibetan Political Reviews on March 2, 2012 and March 17, 2012 respectively. [Sandu's responses are here and here.]To begin with, this piece is written not out of compulsion. Rather, this piece is written for my fellow readers who may presume inaction is an act of submission. Also, this piece is not intended for any particular respondent, including the one noted above. Rather, this piece is written to share my philosophy of writings thus far.
The general philosophy behind my writings on and about Tibetan politics are:
All in all, my small request to fellow Tibetans:
Don’t just listen, watch, and read;
Its high time to talk, write, think, and discuss anything Tibet and Tibetan.
- First, allow me to quote a line from an interview I gave to the University of Wyoming a few months ago, “When I see different perspectives from looking at a particular topic, I see an obligation to share it” (Source: University of Wyoming website).
- I am neither pro-complete independence nor pro-middle way policy. I tend to write for pro-understanding, pro-solution, and pro-result. Most importantly, I strongly believe in pro-discussion. I raise question(s), share my perspectives, and leave the rest for readers to think and discuss.
- Personally, politics is a subjective term for me. In other words, individuals have the right to own different political views or perspectives. These differences may stem from individual knowledge, skills, backgrounds, educations, surrounding environments, interests, and experiences. Therefore, my attempt has always been (and will continue) to provide readers an opportunity to see things from different lenses with a hope of generating discussions. That being said, I am not advocating my writings as all good and final.
One decent example of this “differences” is how the respondent of my last piece viewed the term “discussion”. For him or her, discussion is speaking at a public forum. For me, discussion is more of an interaction or exchange of ideas wherein communication flows from both ends of the public.
- As a small contributor to the Tibetan Political Reviews, my dilemma has always been in trying to put a right balance between content, time, and space. From my understanding, readers generally don’t read lengthy articles.
- Any form of discussion is welcome. I sincerely thank the respondent of my last two pieces for sharing his/her perspectives. We need more of these in writings as well as in all other forms of discussion.
- Finally, I consider personal attacks or potshots are not worth a time to write or respond in a public space.
|Email to a friend or share on Facebook, Twitter, etc.: