An article published under the byline Yiduo in Wednesday's Global Times rebuts the Dalai Lama's hypocrisy on claiming to give up his commitment to "Tibet independence".
The article in the Beijing newspaper questions the Dalai Lama's credibility in saying he does not pursue "Tibet independence" but the Chinese government remains suspicious of his stand.
It also questions the Dalai Lama's statement that he has no intention of separating Tibet or sowing resentment between Tibetans and the Han Chinese.
Since 1960, the Dalai Lama has delivered an annual speech on March 10 to commemorate the anniversary of an armed rebellion that occurred on that day in 1959, something which the Dalai clique calls "the Tibet uprising".
After reviewing the speeches delivered from 1960 to 2008, the author said it was clear to know the Dalai Lama's real intention.
In 12 speeches between 1960 and 1977, he insisted that Tibet was an independent nation, both historically and culturally, and vowed to keep the stand.
Since 1978, after seeing an unwelcome international environment for his "independence" claim, the Dalai Lama had for several years calculatingly avoided using the word "independence".
Since 1984, he had begun interweaving his "independence" pursuit into his speeches, but stopped short of directly using the word independence.
With the introduction of five-point plans and the seven-point proposals in 1987 and 1988, respectively, the Dalai clique initiated the so-called middle-of-the-road policy. This actually derived from the open declaration of independence to a de facto independence, from the one-step independence to a multi-step independence.
In 1989 when the international situation changed rapidly, some antagonist forces in the world supported the decision of granting the Dalai Lama the Nobel Peace Prize.
Misjudging the international situation, the Dalai clique mistakenly perceived the independence timing was coming.
In his 1990 speech, the Dalai Lama said the rapid political changes in Eastern Europe set a model for the whole world and all Tibetans were aspiring for "complete independence".
From 1994 to 2007, seeing the failure of pushing forward explicit "pro-independence" activities, the Dalai clique changed its tactics again and said it hoped for a dialogue with the central government of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
While claiming it was looking for a resolution within the framework of the PRC constitution, the Dalai clique required to create a "Great Tibet Region" and to achieve a "real autonomy", to better preserve Tibet's unique language, religion and heritage.
The article discerns the Dalai clique always fanned up its independence rhetoric while thinking the international situation favorable. If frustrated by global tides, the Dalai clique usually changed its combat tactics.
Nonetheless, the article says, the Dalai clique remains essentially the same despite all apparent changes -- its secessionist nature remains unchanged and their sabotage activities unstopped.
While clamoring in high profile to request a "negotiation" with the PRC government, the Dalai clique has speeded up its infiltration into the PRC territories, diffusing bewildering information among people, making up stories on how horrible Tibetan people are under the relentless suppression.
The Dalai clique induced the ill-informed people to translate stirred resentment into an anti-government attitude, which finally evolved in the Lhasa riots on March 14, the article said.
Although claiming to adopt "non-violence", the "middle-of-the-road policy" and "peaceful negotiation," the article says, the Dalai Lama continues to accommodate and back the Tibetan Youth Congress, a stubborn advocacy group for "Tibet independence".
The article exposes that the elites in the inner circle around the Dalai Lama were activists of the Tibetan Youth Congress.
The Dalai clique's rhetoric of "preserving the unique Tibetan heritage" is just a malicious deception to dupe a global audience, the article says. People who visited Tibet would always be impressed by the efforts made by the PRC government to preserve the traditional Tibetan culture and natural environment there.
What the Dalai clique actually concerns, the article accuses, is not the preservation of Tibetan cultural heritage, but the lost privilege of the noble and clergy classes who in the past unconditionally enjoyed overriding rights over the majority of Tibetans.
The article said the Dalai Lama should be judged on not what he has romanticized his real intention, but what he has tried to realize.