On the evening of Sunday, 29th March 2026, I attended the screening of Milarepa at the Tramshed Theatre in Woolwich, London – an event that proved to be as culturally meaningful as it was personally clarifying. Not long ago, I was part of organising an important Tibet event at this same venue.
When my good friend Tenzin Dakpa – proprietor of Kailash Momo Restaurant, who, in association with Chhong Sherpa of Iro Sushi Ltd., jointly sponsored the community screening and hosted the dinner reception that followed – invited me, I initially told him I was considering attending in protest. When he asked why, it became clear that he was entirely unaware of Mr Buddhi Tamang’s public use of the term “Xizang” on his social platforms.

In fact, upon first discovering this, I had already challenged the use of the term directly on his Facebook page. My concern was immediate and principled. Language is never neutral in such contexts, and silence would have implied acceptance.
My intention in attending was never to disrupt the event. It was to take a clear and principled stand – while remaining open to dialogue.
This was not unfamiliar ground. During 2024–2025, I took a firm and sustained position with the British Museum against the use of the term “Xizang” in its international Silk Roads exhibition – an effort that contributed to the withdrawal of that terminology in the final weeks. That experience reinforced a simple but enduring truth: language matters, and it can – and must – be challenged.
Yet on this occasion, I chose a more direct and personal course: to engage.
I attended the screening carrying with me a letter addressed to Mr Buddhi Tamang, which I hand-delivered to him. Alongside it, I offered a copy of Voice for the Voiceless book authored by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama – a work that speaks to truth, moral courage, and the responsibility of voice. As a gesture of personal respect for his artistic contribution, I also offered him a traditional white scarf (khata).
These gestures were intentional. They reflected both appreciation and responsibility – respect for the artist, alongside clarity of concern.
What followed was a respectful, candid, and necessary conversation. To his credit, Mr Buddhi Tamang engaged with openness and humility. It is precisely because of my admiration for him that this reflection must remain both measured and unequivocal.

First, the artistic achievement of Milarepa deserves clear and unqualified recognition.
Originally staged in Nepal as an ambitious theatrical production involving 54 artists, Milarepa was widely acclaimed for its scale, depth, and spiritual authenticity. Bringing such a production to international audiences in its original form would have been logistically and financially unfeasible. In response, the Aldershot-based Buddhist Community Centre UK (BCCUK) commissioned an innovative adaptation: the entire play was filmed on a constructed set in a single continuous production, later shaped into a nearly two-hour cinematic work.

The result is a remarkable achievement – disciplined, immersive, and spiritually resonant. It communicates the Buddha’s core teachings through the lived experience of the 11th-century Tibetan saint Milarepa with clarity and emotional force. Crucially, it does so while consistently and correctly using the term “Tibet.”
This matters. It stands in stark contrast to a separate and deeply concerning reality that cannot be overlooked.
Mr Buddhi Tamang’s recent participation in a Chinese government-sponsored visit to China and Tibet – alongside other public figures from multiple countries – must be understood within its proper context. These are not neutral cultural exchanges. They are curated environments shaped by state-backed interests, often involving controlled narratives, guided exposure, and high-level hospitality – including five-star accommodation and carefully managed cultural presentation.
It is within this setting that images and video clips emerged – captured and disseminated by Chinese government-linked entities – featuring the use of the term “Xizang.”
This is not incidental. Nor is it neutral.
“Xizang” is a politically constructed term embedded within a broader state narrative that many Tibetans experience as an attempt to reframe, diminish, or erase their historical identity. When such terminology is repeated or amplified by respected international figures – regardless of personal intent – it carries weight and consequence.
Intent, in such circumstances, is not sufficient.
Following our in-person cordial discussion, I also took the step of reinforcing these concerns in writing the following day – ensuring that the message was clear, considered, and documented.
During the evening, I also held constructive discussions with leaders of BCCUK. It is to their credit that, despite hosting Mr Buddhi Tamang as a guest from Nepal, they have not adopted or used the term “Xizang” in any of their communications or programming. This reflects both awareness and principled restraint.

I hold long-standing respect for BCCUK’s work. During my time as Chairman of the Tibetan Community in Britain (2014–2016), I worked closely with them, including during the visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Aldershot in June 2015. That history of cooperation makes their continued clarity on this issue all the more meaningful.
At the same time, a broader pattern is becoming increasingly visible in the UK – one that warrants careful attention.
Chinese state-linked actors have, in recent years, intensified their outreach to Buddhist communities, extending invitations to cultural and religious conferences in China, frequently accompanied by fully sponsored travel, hospitality, and curated experiences. These initiatives are presented as cultural exchange, but function as instruments of soft influence – subtle, strategic, and cumulative.
This is the environment in which terminology like “Xizang” is introduced, repeated, and normalised.
And this is precisely why clarity – and courage – are required.
As an advocate, I state this plainly: the use of “Xizang” by influential public figures must stop.
As an admirer of Mr Buddhi Tamang for many years, I say this with equal sincerity: his voice matters, and so do his choices. His work in Milarepa reflects a deep respect for truth, history, and cultural authenticity. That same standard must extend beyond artistic performance into public expression.
We cannot uphold authenticity in art while permitting distortion in language.
The relationship between Nepal and Tibet is not incidental – it is civilisational. It is rooted in shared spiritual heritage, centuries of exchange, and enduring cultural bonds. That legacy carries weight, and it demands care.
Choosing to use “Tibet” is not an act of defiance. It is an act of accuracy. Of integrity. Of respect.
This is not a call for disengagement. It is a call for awareness, consistency, and responsibility.
At the Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities, we believe in engagement – but not at the expense of truth. Dialogue – but not dilution. Respect – but never silence.


The evening at Tramshed Theatre, followed by continued conversation over dinner at Kailash Momo Restaurant, reinforced a vital lesson: advocacy is not only about protest. It is about presence. About drawing clear lines – calmly, firmly, and without compromise.
Milarepa reminds us that transformation begins within. But in today’s world, integrity must also be visible – expressed through the words we choose, the narratives we affirm, and the positions we are willing to take.
There remains an opportunity here – for alignment between artistic truth and public voice.
It is an opportunity that should be recognised – and taken.
Tsering Passang is a London-based Tibetan blogger and the founder and chair of the Global Alliance for Tibet & Persecuted Minorities. A long-standing Tibetan human rights advocate, he works internationally to advance justice, freedom, and peaceful solutions for Tibetans and other persecuted communities living under authoritarian rule. His writing can be found at www.Tsamtruk.com.










































































You must be logged in to post a comment.