For more than seven decades, the Chinese Communist Party has claimed to govern Tibet with benevolence and progress. I have seen the truth behind the slogans. I have listened to the silences of monks forbidden to speak of the Dalai Lama, watched the erosion of our language in classrooms, and felt the quiet grief of a people whose prayers are monitored and whose culture is treated as a threat. That is why I will only accept complete independence for Tibet.
The so-called “autonomous region” is autonomous in name only. Decisions about religion, education and cultural preservation are made in Beijing, not Lhasa. Surveillance is omnipresent. Monasteries are forced to submit to party oversight. Children are taught to revere Mao Zedong (毛澤東) before they understand the teachings of the Buddha.
Some point to infrastructure and economic development as signs of progress, but what good is a highway if it leads to the erasure of your identity? Development without dignity is a hollow promise. Tibetans want the freedom to speak our language, to practice our faith and to honor our history without fear.
The yearning for freedom is not confined to exile. It lives in the hearts of Tibetans inside Tibet, who risk imprisonment to preserve our traditions. It lives in the quiet defiance of those who walk clockwise around sacred sites, who whisper prayers for the Dalai Lama, and who name their children after exiled leaders.
I once supported the Middle Way Approach, believing that genuine autonomy within China might offer a path forward. However, Beijing has responded to moderation with repression. The people of Tibet have waited long enough. They yearn for liberation, not compromise.
Independence is the only path that honors our history, protects our future and restores the dignity that Chinese rule has tried to extinguish. Tibet belongs to Tibetans — not as a province, not as a project, but as a nation.
We will not be silenced. We will not be assimilated. We will not surrender our birthright. The people of Tibet yearn for freedom, and I will stand with them until that freedom is won.
Khedroob Thondup is a former member of the Tibetan parliament-in-exile.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS