KARMAPA’S RETURN The Controversy Continues

Sunday’s (Sept 26) ‘Peace Rally’ by thousands of Buddhist devotees in the State capital of Sikkim heralds a significant change in the campaign for early return of the 17th Karmapa, who many believe is the Dharamsala-based Ugyen Thinely Dorjee, to Sikkim. Ugyen Thinley is not only recognized by His Holiness the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of the 16th Karmapa – who  lived in the former kingdom of Sikkim and died in Chicago in 1981 – but  also by leading Buddhist monks of Tibetan Buddhism. Now that the common people are actively involved in the demand for early return of the Karmapa to his rightful place at Rumtek Monastery, regarded as the seat-in-exile of the Gyalwa Karmapa, head of Kagyu sect of Tibetan Buddhism, both the Central and State governments are now forced to take a second look at the ‘Karmapa controversy’, which has refused to die down since the recognition of Ugyen Thinley as the heir to the Karmapa throne nearly two decades back.
Ever since the Dalai Lama conferred official recognition to the Tibet-born Karmapa Ugyen Thinley in June 1992, the controversy revolved round the identity of the 17th Karmapa and the Government of India’s delay or reluctance to allow him to visit Sikkim. Shamar Rinpoche, one of the most powerful of the existing three of the four Regents of Rumtek Monastery, proposed his own candidate, Thinley Thaye Dorjee, as the real Karmapa. This led to many petty feuds between the followers of Shamar Rinpoche and Situ Rinpoche, one of the Regents who backed Ugyen Thinley. Social and religious organizations and political parties in Sikkim and elsewhere added to the controversy with their support to the two parties. Meanwhile, the dramatic escape of Ugyen Thinley from Tibet into India in 2001 added a new dimension to the already existing controversy with the Indian Government and the national media taking note of Situ Rinpoche’s alleged Chinese connection and China’s perceived role in the whole Karmapa affair.
It is also significant to note the Tibetan spiritual and temporal leader the Dalai Lama’s recent pronouncements regarding his proposal for Ugyen Thinley to step into his shoes. Despite Chinese crackdown on Buddhist practitioners in Tibet Buddhism is growing there and in the Himalayan region, which was once under Tibet’s temporal and spiritual control in various degree. If Ugyen Thinley is allowed to take charge of Rumtek Monastery the former kingdom of Sikkim will, once again, be under international focus. How will he – if ever he is allowed – be able to look after the Tibetan exiled government in Dharamsala and at the same time take charge of his seat-in-exile in Sikkim?  Added to these crucial factors is China’s opposition to Sikkim being part of India during the time of the merger and its reluctance to accept it afterwards. Officially, Beijing has said that the 17th Karmapa left Tibet to collect his religious articles. Where could these articles be if not in Rumtek Monastery? Is this part of the reason why New Delhi is reluctant to allow Ugyen Thinley to visit Sikkim? If the Karmapa wants to take back the articles, including the sacred Black Hat, to Tsurphu Monastery, his traditional seat in Tibet, who can stop him? The complexities of the Karmapa controversry must be looked into without any prejudices and involvement of vested interests, who have their own hidden agenda, if the concerned authorities are inclined to take a more positive view of the whole situation.

JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY India Is On Trial In Sikkim, Not Justice Dinakaran

The controversy over Justice PD Dinakaran’s recent transfer to the Sikkim High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium, despite widespread opposition to the transfer and his continued place in the judiciary, is looking at one side of the coin only. Justice Dinakaran’s elevation to the Supreme Court was put on hold as he was facing allegations of corruption and land grabbing following exposures made by an NGO on judicial accountability. The controversial transfer has taken place even as the committee set up by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, Hamid Ansari, India’s Vice-President, to look into the allegations against Justice Dinakaran in an impeachment motion is yet to finalise the chargesheet against him. If and when the chargesheet is served on him another controversy will erupt in the sub-continent’s legal and political fraternity. The law will surely take its own course and if Justice Dinakaran is not found guilty he will be acquitted.

The other side of the coin is the right of the people in a democracy to speak out their mind even if their views are critical of the high and mighty, including the guardians of the judicial system in the country. Those in Sikkim, particularly BJP’s Padam Sharma and unemployed youth leader, Nawin Kiran Pradhan, who promptly, openly and  critically opposed the transfer deserve our congratulation and salute not because they opposed the transfer but because they, while others hesitated, freely expressed their views on a very touchy and sensitive issue. It is from heroic acts of individuals such as these who, mindless of consequences, make their stand clear and effectively on such sensitive issues such as Justice Dinakaran’s transfer that will help kindle the flame of freedom and justice in a State, where people continue to live in fear and fail to exercise their fundamental democratic and human rights promised to the Sikkimese people during the ‘merger’ in mid-seventies. “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”(Dante)

Justice Dinakaran is not on trial in Sikkim. For all the allegations hurled on him by so many legal luminaries and political pundits he may not be as bad as he is made out to be. Is the judicial system in the entire country above reproach? Are all our judges clean and upright and courts fair? It is pertinent to state that the Sikkimese people, who were promised an “independent judiciary” during the “merger”, have, by and large, lost all faith in the judicial process. And this is not because of any single act of a particular individual in the courts in the State. The blame must surely be placed on a system that thrives on lies, deceit and corruption. What is to be seen is not whether we, including the media, have committed contempt of court while trying to expose and clean up the system, but whether we, as a people, have together shied away from our duties and thereby committed contempt of justice.

The concerned authorities, including the Supreme Court, President, Prime Minister and Law Minister, were aware of the views and sentiments expressed by the people of Sikkim in the past so many months and  years against their State being made a dumping ground for unwanted elements who are rejected by the rest of the country. The phrase “dumping ground” was first coined by Sikkimese Parliamentarian, Nandu Thapa, who in a memorandum in the early ’90s, warned New Delhi of further neglecting Sikkim and treating it as a dirty backyard. If New Delhi is still only interested in taking over the former kingdom and then pumping enough money to buy peace then here is a stern warning that should be taken very seriously: sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. It is naïve to think that the Sikkimese people’s reaction to Justice Dinakaran’s transfer will be confined to the judiciary. In Sikkim it is a live political issue which has the potential of becoming a catalyst for political instability in the State if not handled carefully. Justice Dinakaran is not on trial in Sikkim, India is.