India must exert pressure on China over Tibet

In May 2020, China seized Indian territory in eastern Ladakh in a blatant act of aggression in violation of written norms and agreements. On January 1, 2022, it promulgated the new Land Border Law, which converted the border dispute into an issue of sovereignty. The previous day, December 31, 2021, it gave Chinese names to 15 locations in Arunachal Pradesh and linked them with the stapled visa issue.

India has merely reacted to the provocations, with Foreign Minister S Jaishankar describing India-China relations as “very fragile and quite dangerous”, to which China’s Charge d’Affaires Ma Jia said recently, “But we do not want a war.”

Meanwhile, the US Senate has passed a bipartisan resolution declaring the McMahon Line as the border between China and Arunachal Pradesh, calling it an integral part of India. But Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu has said it does not have a border with China but with Tibet. This strategic contradiction will unhinge Tibet’s stand on sovereignty.

The Tibet issue has cropped up on several occasions in the recent past — Foundation for Non-Violent Alternatives’s (FNVA) pathbreaking paper ‘Resetting India’s Tibet Policy 2022’; a film on the Dalai Lama’s great escape in 1959 (Never Forget Tibet); lectures on ‘Little or Greater Tibet’ by Prof Robert Linrothe; research work on Tibet by Claude Arpi; and Tibetan Youth Congress’ protest near the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi on the 64th anniversary of the National Uprising Day.

In view of these developments, India should say at an appropriate time that it has had a rethink on Tibet. It had recognised Tibet as a part of China on the condition that Lhasa exercised full autonomy, which Beijing has not honoured.

Tibet being a part of China can be affirmed by a Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) decision on the status of Tibet after the dialogue with it, suspended in 2010, is resumed. The 17-point agreement between Tibet and China stood cancelled when the latter dissolved the Tibet government in 1954.

Historian and legal luminary Dr Michael Walt has convincingly established that China exercised suzerainty, never sovereignty, over Tibet. It claimed sovereignty after military occupation in 1949-51. Tibet was de facto/de jure independent till 1949 and never an integral part of China. The India-China border is, therefore, the India-Tibet border sanctified by the validity of the Indo-Tibetan Simla Convention, 1914, and Asian Relations Conference at Delhi in 1947. China’s occupation of Tibet is, therefore, illegal.

This legal infirmity of China’s claim on Tibet has led to Beijing making various countries reaffirm that Tibet is a part of China. It calls this its ‘One China’ policy which is a misnomer as ‘One China’ policy relates to Taiwan, not Tibet, since this was related to US-Taiwan relations in the early 1970s. Till 2010, India used to oblige China by deferring to its need of articulation of the ‘One China’ policy. Since then, it has pointedly refused to do so, which was a baby step towards revising its Tibet policy, but it has taken no further steps.

Besides rekindling the Tibet issue, New Delhi should also commence making statements on the succession of the 14th Dalai Lama after consultations with him. On March 8, he chose in Dharamsala the reincarnation of the head lama of Mongolia and not his own successor. India should stop referring to him as an ‘honoured guest’ but as a ‘spiritual leader of the Tibetan nation and people’. New Delhi should make it clear that it will support the CTA and the prerogative of the Dalai Lama to choose his successor according to ancient customs.

Ground reality suggests that just as there are two Panchen Lamas, there will be two Dalai Lamas with China exercising its extraconstitutional authority in nominating one. The Dalai Lama has maintained silence on his succession. He could find his reincarnation in Dharamsala or even Tibet or may discontinue the spiritual fountainhead of the Dalai Lama.

Current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, now 87, had made a statement on his reincarnation on September 24, 2011. The Dalai Lama as a political and spiritual leader has functioned for 369 years since 1642. He concluded his long statement on succession: “When I am 90, I will consult the High Lamas of Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Tibetan public and other people concerned…who follow Tibetan Buddhism and reveal whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not.” He warned against a candidate chosen for political ends by the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The FNVA has noted that in case the Dalai Lama does not choose his successor, Tibetans may get disillusioned, radicalised and militaristic. Its consequences after the Dalai Lama passes away will be profound and contingency plans would have to be prepared, especially regarding China’s likely reactions. Other issues in the FNVA report on which India has been conspicuously silent are human rights violations in Tibet and ‘sinicisation’ of Tibet. It is instructive to recall India’s resolution at the UNGA, 1965. Its representative, Rafiq Zakaria, said: “As we know, ever since Tibet came under the stranglehold of China, Tibetans have been subjected to continuous and unceasing ruthlessness and in the name of introducing democratic norms and fighting a counter-revolution, the Chinese have indulged in the worst kind of genocide and suppression of a minority race.”

Fast-forward to 2003. In talks between the then Chinese President Hu Jintao and India’s Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, New Delhi reiterated its recognition of the Tibetan Autonomous Region as part of territory of the PRC. The Agreement on Political Parameters and Framework for a Border Resolution was stymied by China, just like the earlier joint effort to identify the Line of Actual Control. India should, therefore, no longer accept Tibet as part of the PRC and instead recognise it as an independent country as recorded in the Simla Convention.

A discussion in Parliament over the future of Tibet, ongoing human rights violations, the Dalai Lama’s succession and China’s aggression in Ladakh is urgently required. The time to act is now — when China’s notoriety and military coercion are at their peak and internationally it is in the doghouse. India should not fear China’s reaction.