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.
