Claude Arpi is a French scholar with a deep and abiding interest in spirituality, especially Tibetan Buddhism. In 1971, on a visit to Manali in the Himalayas, he met his first Tibetans, an event that was to change his life. As he tells us, "They had lost everything: their country, their wealth, very often many members of their family and still they could stand on the road and smile. ...How could someone educated in a Cartesian country with a modern utilitarian education understand this bizarre phenomenon?" This was the beginning of a nearly thirty-year quest to understand the Tibetans and their tragedy. He shares the result of that experience - along with its lessons - in the magnificent book reviewed here.

The author understands that Tibet is unique among the countries of the world in having a history shaped more by spirituality than political movements. Recognising this, he begins with a history of Tibet always keeping its spirituality in focus. In a real sense, Tibet entered the 'modern' period with the Young husband expedition of 1914 that formalised the relationship between India and Tibet. But what followed, especially after India's independence in 1947 was a tragedy of epic proportions. As Arpi shows, what Nehru and his Government did was not only betray Tibet, but also severely undermine India's national security interests in pursuit of personal glory - even to the extent of placing Chinese interests ahead of Indian interests. This is the untold story of recent history that comes to light upon studying The Fate of Tibet. To follow this, however, we must first visit the world after Indian independence in 1947, followed by the
Communist takeover of China in 1949.

In the year 1950, two momentous events shook Asia and the world. One was the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and the other, Chinese intervention in the Korean War. The first was near, on India's borders, the other, far away in the Korean Peninsula where India had little at stake. By all canons of logic, India should have devoted utmost attention to the immediate situation in Tibet, and let interested parties like China and the U.S. sort it out in Korea. But Jawaharlal Nehru, India's Prime Minister, did exactly the opposite. He treated the Tibetan crisis in a haphazard fashion, while getting heavily involved in Korea. India today is paying for this folly by being the only country of its size in the world without an official boundary with its giant neighbour. Tibet soon disappeared from the map. It was a tragedy both in the Greek and the Shakespearean sense. While they may seem different on the surface, the Kashmir problem and the border problem with China very have similar roots. In Kashmir, Nehru ignored the advice of his field commanders, General K.S. Thimayya and General L.P. Sen, and referred the case to the United Nations on Mountbatten's advice. In the case of Tibet also, Nehru chose to be guided by Krishna Menon and K.M. Panikkar - both known communist sympathisers - while disregarding the advice of Sardar Vallabhai Patel. India gave up treaty rights and interests that she had inherited from the British, allowing China a free hand in Tibet. Simultaneously, he became preoccupied with Korea in an effort to project himself as a mediator between the Socialist world and the West. In both cases, Nehru sacrificed national interest at home in pursuit of international glory abroad.

India gained nothing from this conduct except hostility from the West. Even more than India's later friendship with the Soviet Union, it was the squalid betrayal of Tibet and the sponsorship of Mao's China that soured India's relationship with America. Acharya Kripalani declared in the Parliament: "Soon, this nation [China] that was struggling for its own freedom, strangulated the freedom of a neighbouring nation [Tibet], in whose freedom we are intimately connected."

This brings us to another important contribution of Arpi's book, the deception practised by Nehru on the Indians themselves. On the heels of this twin blunder - abandonment of Tibet and sponsorship of China, with nothing to show in return - Nehru began a third march of folly and deception in which national interest became subordinate to his pursuit of international glory. This was called Pancha Sheela.

There was ample historical and contemporary evidence to show that China respected only strength and not pacific pronouncements based on utopian fantasy. If China were such an admirer of pacifism, it would not have brutally erased the peaceful state of Tibet. But Nehru wanted to see none of this. As Arpi observes, "nothing would stop Nehru from going ahead with his policy of friendship with China. Over the years, the myth of the Indo-Chinese friendship would grow larger and larger, becoming a 'brotherhood', until that day in October 1962 when Lin Biao and his PLA [People's Liberation Army] on the Thag La Ridge in the West Kameng Division in NEFA [Arunachal Pradesh]."

The Pancha Sheela, which was the principal 'policy' of Nehru towards China from the betrayal of Tibet to the expulsion of Dalai Lama in 1959, is generally regarded as a demonstration of good faith by Nehru that was exploited by the Chinese who 'stabbed him in the back'. This is not quite correct, for Nehru was himself guilty of both policy blunders and deception: Nehru (and Menon) knew about the Chinese incursions in Ladakh and Aksai Chin but kept it secret for years to keep the illusion of Pancha Sheela alive.

This brings us back to Arpi's book. Pancha Sheela was not the only deception, as Arpi convincingly shows. What the Indian public does not know is that Nehru and Menon had been fully informed about the Chinese encroachment in Aksai Chin - years before it became public. Most Indians learnt of the Chinese encroachment in 1959, when the Dalai Lama was forced to come to India. General Thimayya had brought the Chinese activities in Aksai Chin to the notice of Nehru and Menon several years before that. Arpi produces evidence showing that in 1955, an English mountaineer by name Sydney Wignall was deputed by Thimayya to verify reports that the Chinese were building a road through Aksai Chin. He was captured by the Chinese but released and made his way back to India after incredible difficulties, surviving several snowstorms. Now Thimayya had proof of Chinese incursion.

When the Army presented this to the Government, Menon blew up. In Nehru's presence, he told the senior officer making the presentation that he was "lapping up CIA agent provocateur propaganda." This is not the whole story. I can confirm that Wignall was not Thimayya's only source. Shortly after the Chinese attack in 1962, General Thimayya, in a talk in Bangalore, mentioned that he had deputed a young officer of the Madras Sappers (MEG) to Aksai Chin to investigate reports of Chinese intrusion. The officer was captured by the Chinese who were there in strength, but released some weeks later, after he signed a few papers. I had the opportunity to see Thimayya the next day and discuss it in more detail. On neither occasion did Thimayya say anything about Wignall's report but confirmed that he had informed the Government about the Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin several years before it was made public. In all this, the victims were the Tibetans and the Indian public.

In summary, The Fate of Tibet by Claude Arpi is a monumental contribution to the study of this important but poorly understood phase of Indian history and foreign policy. It sheds new light and raises important questions for the Indian political-military establishment - and the public. Unfortunately, the editorial work on this major work is not on the same level as the author's diligence and scholarship. Panikkar's name is often misspelt, and surely, a work as important and complex as The Fate of Tibet deserves an index. It is hoped that these will be corrected in a future edition. In the meantime, the author has produced a work of first importance that must be studied by every serious student of this history and every policymaker in
India.

"Working with nature" is an approach to resource management that differs philosophically from that based upon the assumption that nature must be conquered, controlled, and disciplined to suit perceived human needs. That philosophy was successful on the frontier, when immediate survival of humanity depended upon conquering nature. However, the ability of humanity to survive for the short term is no longer in doubt - the question is whether humanity can survive for the long term. The answer depends in part on whether we will continue to rely upon technology-intensive management that has yet to prove that it can be as effective as sustainability as it is at short-term profitmaking.

Working with nature takes the view that resource management should be based on an understanding of the naturally occurring interactions within ecosystems and how these interactions can be used to provide for human needs. It includes the study of natural interactions between different species of plants, between plants and animals, and how these interactions can be substituted for technological control. In practice, we first try to understand the interactions and then design a system that takes advantage of what is nature is already doing. For example, we look at the ecological services performed by trees, such as recycling nutrients and controlling weeds. Then, we design an agroforestry system in which interplanted crop plants can take advantage of these services.

Another example of the contrast between conventional and alternative resource management is in the area of pest control. Until about a decade ago, a frequent approach was to spray a field with insecticides until no more insects could be found. The alternative approach recommends that pest management be based on reliance on natural functions, such as wasps that are parasitic on pest species. The challenge for ecological scientists interested in sustainable resource management is finding the right predator to control the pest, and determining what type of habitat is required by the desired predator.

Is it feasible to change the way we manage our resource systems - farms, forests, and rangelands - from conquest to cooperation? Taking advantage of the services of nature is often not only labour -intensive, but intensive in information and understanding of the functioning of natural systems. Standing in the way of its adoption is the fact that labour is expensive in the United States, and the ecological science upon which natural management is based is not readily available to the managers of agribusiness, forest products industries, and meat production operations.

Most colleges of agriculture, forestry, and range management have tried to jump onto the environmental bandwagon. Philosophically, however, they still adhere to an economically based mentality that bigger is better, and that high-tech is better than low-tech. Thus, bigger recycling systems are better than small recycling systems, and insect control based upon chemical baiting is better than insect control based upon diversification of crops.

In contrast, the idea of working with - instead of against - nature is an ecologically based philosophy, where the economic system accommodates the forces of nature rather than vice versa. Mainstream economists criticise such an idea as being unrealistic and impractical. What critics forget is that agriculture - as practised in the United States 150 years ago - was also unrealistic and impractical for economic development and progress, and forestry and range management did not exist at all. To stimulate the development of resource using industries, the government had to subsidise farming, forestry, and ranching. Only now in the 1990s, as sustainability is competing with increasing production as a goal of resource management, are some of the subsidies for production finally being phased out.

Now that sustainability has become an important goal in resource management, it is time to begin work on systems that are truly sustainable, as long-term sustainability can be achieved only when reliance on the services of nature begins to be substituted for reliance on human technology. But where will the movement toward more sustainable agriculture begin? Not with industry - the world's agrobusinessmen are unlikely to suddenly become organic gardeners. Their responsibility is to make a profit for shareholders. Who the, should be concerned with developing sustainable agriculture?

There are a few privately funded organisations, such as the Rodale Institute and Winrock International, that are concerned with long-term agricultural sustainability. In the public sector, it is only the universities that have the freedom and opportunity to pursue interests that are not justified by economic profit.

However, there is little support for alternative agriculture and agroforestry within present day research universities because of the little support given by government funding agencies. The conversion to sustainability can begin only when governments are convinced that serious subsidies must be dedicated to not only encourage research on alternative agriculture and forestry in the universities, but to encourage their practice in the private sector.