Recent weeks have witnessed Tibet’s capital Lhasa having been rocked by protests by the Tibetans against the Chinese authorities, which are seen in terms of an uprising against the Chinese authorities’ repressive policies on the Tibetan plateau. These protests have spread to other parts of China, including Beijing. Its tremors are being felt in various parts of the World as well, including India. The Chinese authorities have clamped down a terrifying crackdown on an unprecedented scale on the protestors and even expelled all foreign reporters from Tibet. All these developments took place in the full glare of the world’s attention just months before the Olympics in Beijing.
China has blocked all access to You Tube, a leading free video sharing website, to prevent videos on Tibet from being circulated in China. Countries around the world expressed outrage at the Chinese handling of the protests. The United Nations asked China to show ‘restraint.’ As a sequel to developments in Tibet, the world has once again woken up to the reality of the Tibet issue.
China’s Response
Ongoing events in Tibet have put an embarrassing spotlight on China. Undoubtedly, the Tibetan uprising seems to have been reined in temporarily, man China watchers believe that the Tibet story is not over. Troubles could erupt again. The simmering discontent among the people of Tibet which finds occasional outburst at a massive scale makes a discernible observer to realize that China’s Tibet policy has been a failure. A group of prominent Chinese writers and intellectuals have recently questioned publicly the Beijing’s Tibet policy.
There have been frequent reports of the Tibetan protestors led by Buddhist monks having clashed with Chinese troops and burnt vehicles and shops in recent weeks in the biggest and angriest demonstrations in two decades against Chinese rule. China has accused the groups associated with the Dalai Lama of having ‘masterminded’ the violence in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa.
Protests in the remote mountainous region, one of the biggest in two decades against the Chinese rule, had erupted into violence with demonstrators clashing with the troops and going on the rampage, setting fire to shops and vehicles. The government of Tibet Autonomous Region said it had ‘enough evidence’ to back its claim of ‘sabotage’ and that it was ‘organized, premeditated and masterminded’ by the Dalai “clique” (an exclusive circle of people with common purpose). The ongoing violence has disrupted the public order and jeopardized people’s lives and property. The Chinese authorities in Tibet claim that they are fully capable of maintaining social stability of Tibet and safeguarding the safety of the people of all ethnic groups in Tibet and their properties.
Viewed in a broad spectrum, the people living in the Autonomous Region of Tibet have no freedom of assembly, religion or speech. They are not allowed even to carry pictures of their supreme spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, for a simple crime such as this or even just shouting ‘Free Tibet’ they are given long sentences in prison. Tibetans cannot even Torture is still used in prisons and labour camps in Tibet, even though in 1988 China ratified the UN Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These developments make the case for the Tibetan movement stronger.
In November 2005 the United Nations Special Reporter on torture visited China and Tibet and confirmed that torture was still very widespread, leading to a “culture of fear”. He vividly described the kinds of torture that take place: “Beatings; use of electric shock batons; guard-instructed or permitted beatings by fellow prisoners; use of handcuffs or ankle fetters for extended periods…submersion in pits of water or sewage; exposure to…extreme heat or cold, being forced to maintain uncomfortable positions…for long, deprivation of sleep, food…water; prolonged solitary confinement; denial of medical treatment and medication; hard labour…suspension from overhead fixtures from handcuffs…”
China’s activities in Tibet since 1949 pose a grave threat as problems in Tibet have major trans-boundary effects. About half of the global population depends on the rivers of Tibet for survival and one of the most concerning projects being undertaken now is the diversion of the Brahmaputra, which could cause major water shortage in India and Bangladesh. China is also reported to have stationed approximately 90 nuclear warheads in Tibet, and the Ninth Academy, China’s academy for nuclear research located in Amdo, Tibet, has dumped a large quantity of radio active waste in a disorganized, dangerous manner.
The potential for destruction is prone to increase as China continues such hazardous activities. One can only imagine the future crisis this will lead to. Tibet acted as a buffer zone between India and China and now that this is gone we are open to many dangers. It is in India’s interest if Tibet is returned to the Tibetans and becomes a ‘zone of peace’ as the Dalai Lama wishes.
Past Legacy
Tibet, once a sovereign state with a unique system of government, culture, language and religion was invaded in 1949 by 35,000 Chinese troops. What followed was a large-scale massacre of the Tibetan people and their traditions. By 1950, China annexed Tibet. China lays its claim to ‘ownership’ of Tibet on the historical relationship that existed between the Mongol or Manchu rulers of China with the Tibetan lamas (monks). The political and spiritual leadership of the Tibetans lies with the Dalai Lamas, individuals who are supposed to be reincarnations of the Bodhisattvas, the patron saints of Tibet. The present Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, has been living in Dharamsala in India since 1959 ever since he fled Tibet.
Over 1.2 million Tibetans had been killed between 1949 and 1979. And the repressive policies followed by the Chinese authorities have added more numbers to the list. Since 1951 Tibet, the high-altitude Himalayan plateau associated in popular memory with meditation and Buddhist serenity, has been the scene of periodic strife. The following chronology shows some of the main events in modern China-Tibet relations.
- Oct 1950: Chinese troops of People’s Liberation Army under Mao Zedong march into Tibet.
- Sept 1954: Chairman Mao meets Dalai Lama.
- March 1959: Tibetans stage abortive uprising after Communist reforms are introduced to end feudal practices. Tibet’s god-king, the Dalai Lama, flees to India with an estimated 80,000 followers and establishes a “government-in-exile”.
- 1965: Tibet Autonomous Region is formally established.
- 1966: Tibetan Red Guards close monasteries in Tibet, smash Buddhist statues and force monks and nuns to return to secular life.
- 1972: US President Richard Nixon visits China. Signs a pact to end Central Intelligence Agency training for Tibetan guerrillas who fought against the Chinese army in Tibet.
- 1979: Dalai Lama’s brother, Gyalo Thondup, visits China at invitation of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping.
- March 1989: Martial law imposed in Lhasa after days of rioting sparked by January death of the 10th Panchen Lama, most senior figure in Tibetan Buddhism after Dalai Lama.
- October 1989: Dalai Lama is awarded Nobel Peace Prize.
- May 1990: Lhasa lifts martial law. Government-in-exile headed by Dalai Lama disbands to pave way for democracy, announcing elections for 1991.
- August 1993: Dalai Lama says at rare news conference he is fighting for Tibet’s political autonomy, not independence.
- 1994: Dalai Lama suspends dialogue with China due to lack of progress.
- May 1995: Dalai Lama declares 6-year-old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as reincarnation of late 10th Panchen Lama.
- December 1995: India-based Tibetans protest Beijing’s choice of a 6-year-old boy, Gyaincain Norbu, as the 11th Panchen Lama, considering him a “fake”.
- June 1996: Dalai Lama swears in new Tibetan government-in-exile following elections.
- Dec 1998: Dalai Lama says he is open for talks with China for mutual agreement “without any precondition, anytime, anywhere”.
- March 1999: China says its doors are open to the Dalai Lama, provided he abandons his calls for Tibetan independence and makes a statement recognizing Tibet as an inseparable part of China.
- Dec 1999: Dalai Lama says Tibetans would be satisfied with self-rule but accuses the Chinese of cultural genocide.
- Jan 1999: Tibet’s third ranked monk, the 14-year-old Karmapa Lama, flees China in a week-long trek across the Himalayas to India and meets the Dalai Lama.
- July 2006: China opens Qinghai-Tibet Railway, the world’s highest railroad, saying it will help modernize and develop Tibet much against the wishes of Tibetans who view it as a threat to their fragile environment.
- March 10, 2008: Unrest in Tibet on the anniversary of a 1959 uprising against Chinese rule of the region leading to death of 80 people. However, Tibet’s government official put the death toll at 13 and says they were Han Chinese civilians killed by Tibetan mobs. Unrest spreads to ethnic Tibetan communities in nearby Chinese provinces
- March 17, 2008: China bans entry of foreign visitors and asks tourists to leave following “safety concerns”.
US Reactions
China’s recent violent crackdown on protesters in Tibet is having powerful political reverberations in Washington, where the Bush Administration is weighing how far to go in denouncing the Chinese government, even as it defends President Bush’s decision to attend the Summer Olympics in Beijing. President Bush has long said the United States and China have ‘a complex relationship’ and that complexity was on full display recently. While the White House has called for an end to the violence, and US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, phoned her Chinese counterpart to urge restraint, President Bush himself has kept mum on this issue.
In the meantime, the presidential candidates are speaking out, as is the speaker of the House of the Representative, Nancy Pelosi. Recently, Ms. Pelosi visited the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, at his headquarters in Dharamsala, India — and poked a finger in the eye of Beijing. Describing the recent clashes between Chinese security forces and Tibetan demonstrators as ‘a challenge to conscience of the world,’ Ms. Pelosi said, “If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China’s oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world.”
If it seemed like a direct challenge to Mr. Bush, he did not take the bait. “At this point, there is no doubt that the Chinese government knows where President Bush stands,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman. He said the White House had no comment on Ms. Pelosi’s visit. By the middle of March 2008 when the Chinese authorities were clamping down severe measures against unarmed protestors in Tibet, the United States urged China to ‘exercise restraint’ in dealing with the protests by Buddhist monks against the communist rule, also asking it to address its ‘policies’ in Tibetan areas “that have created tensions.”
In a statement, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Chinese government to release monks ‘detained solely for the peaceful expression of their views.’ She further said: “I am deeply saddened to learn that the turmoil that erupted yesterday in Lhasa following what began as peaceful protests has resulted in the loss of lives, and I am concerned that the violence appears to be continuing.” Expressing her concern at reports of a sharply-increased police and military presence in and around Lhasa, she said: “We call on the Chinese government to exercise restraint in dealing with these protests, and we strongly urge all sides to refrain from violence.”
While urging China to respect the fundamental and universally recognized right of all of its citizens to peacefully express their political and religious views, the United States has called on China to release monks and others who have been detained solely for the peaceful expression of their views. Reiterating Washington’s policy in this regard, Rice, while stressing for the long-standing issues with regard to Tibet to be resolved, added: “President Bush has consistently encouraged the Chinese government to engage in substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama directly and through his representatives.”
Charging the White House with downplaying human rights violations by China, Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has asked President George W. Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony to press the communist giant over Tibet. She further said: “I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.”
Her statement came as pro-Tibetan activists began protests in San Francisco where the Olympic torch was due to arrive after a chaotic journey through Paris and London. Three demonstrators scaled the landmark Golden Gate Bridge unfurling a giant banner reading “One World, One Dream” and “Free Tibet 08”. San Francisco is the only stop in the United States for the torch, which is being taken to Beijing.
In an apparent attempt to appear tough, Clinton went beyond other democrats in demanding boycott of the opening ceremony, citing violent clashes in Tibet. She added: “These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government,” she said. But Clinton also urged the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an “opportunity to live up to universal human rights aspiration of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic Games have come to represent.”
Prior to Ms Hillary’s statement, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the Bush administration has a great deal of concern about human rights in China and would never be afraid to express its views but the administration expected the American athletes to participate in the games.
President Bush has insisted that he will attend the opening ceremony in August despite protests from Democrats over China’s crackdown in Tibet. At least 35 people were arrested in London as anti-China protesters clashed with police and tried to snatch the torch. In Paris, officials put out the torch several times following disruptions by protesters. The relay was cut short and was finally taken by bus to a stadium where clashes broke out between pro-Tibet activists and China supporters.
China reacted angrily to the disruption of the Olympic torch relay by pro-Tibetan protesters calling it “despicable activities” and vowed not to bow to “outside pressure” to make concessions on the Tibet issue. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said: “We express strong condemnation of the deliberate disruption of the Olympic Torch Relay by ‘Tibetan independence’ separatist forces regardless of the Olympic spirit and the law of Britain and France.” The Bush administration is unlikely to undertake any tough posture against China on Tibet issue.
India’s Response
India’s response to developments in Tibet has been a measured one. New Delhi’s Tibet policy consists of giving refuge to Tibetans, now numbering around 100,000, and yet trying not to antagonize China at the same time. Concurrently, India’s China policy has always had two extreme versions – some policy makers and leaders stick to the ostrich-like policy where they believe that if they ignore China it will ignore them and the problems will just vanish. Others believe that India should avoid antagonizing China and they fear that the key reason U.S. is coming closer to India is to use it against China.
The Indian reaction to turmoil in Tibet was contradictory, reflecting the two extremes in its policy establishment. The Indian External Affairs Ministry said the UPA government felt “distressed.” It also referred to the “unsettled situation and violence in Lhasa.” It spoke of the “deaths of innocent people.” It expressed the hope that “all those involved” — meaning, perpetrators of arson and killing as well as authorities — would “work to improve the situation.” Most important, it called on Beijing to “remove the causes of such trouble in Tibet” through dialogue and non-violent means.
At the same time the Indian foreign ministry spokesman also commented “Tibetan refugees are our guests in India. They are expected to refrain from political activities and such activities as affect our relations with other friendly countries.” Also the CPI (Marxist), part of the governing coalition, said that Tibet is ‘an internal matter’ of China.
Editorials in Indian newspapers insist that India should stop trying to play a ‘Tibet card.’ They also think that India and the Indian government might have had advance knowledge of the Lhasa protests but deliberately kept quiet. The reason is that if India starts interfering in Tibet China will increase its interference in Arunachal and encourage Pakistan to interfere in India.
Other analysts think that United States is trying to use India to increase pressure on China. With the Olympics this summer China needs as much political capital as it can have and any focus on China’s dealing with its ethnic minorities or its human rights policies will negatively impact China. What they worry about is that the United States is only using India while it continues its economic ties with China.
As one analyst said “Nevertheless, the Games will end on August 24, 2008. American companies will continue sourcing products from China; Australia will persist with selling it uranium. Ms Pelosi and President Nicolas Sarkozy will switch to other concerns. Tibet will remain in Chinese hands. This will still be India’s backyard. Why should it be left holding the baby?” If India and Indian policy makers believe that by keeping quiet on Tibet they will gain acceptance from China on Arunachal or Sikkim it has not happened in 50 years. In trying to ‘curry’ China’s favor and goodwill if we lose the goodwill of the Tibetans, in India and abroad, then we will have made the worse bargain.
Viewed in a broad perspective, the settlement of the India-China border and the status of Tibet are interlinked issues. Unless there is all-round agreement that Tibet is a part of China, there is only an India-Tibet boundary, not an India-China boundary. By the crude and aggressive reiteration of its claim to Arunachal Pradesh, China has already ruled out any early settlement of the boundary question with India. Recent events in Tibet go to only reiterate Beijing’s thinking not to settle the border with India unless it has Tibet firmly under its control. Thus, it devolves on India to deal with China with this perspective clearly in mind.
Although it has already extracted significant concessions from India on Tibet, China remains uncertain and anxious about India’s Tibet policy. The Dalai Lama’s periodic statements, including recently, that India’s policy on Tibet is over-cautious reinforce China’s suspicions and fears. The failure of six rounds of talks between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government seem to indicate that the Chinese leaders have made up their minds that a satisfactory solution to Tibet, from China’s point of view, is unlikely while the present Dalai Lama is still alive.
China’s mistrust of the Dalai Lama has only intensified after the recent troubles. Yet, contrary to what the Chinese government may be thinking, a post-Dalai Lama situation may become more radicalized, unpredictable and violent.
In India’s relations with China, Tibet is a key issue that requires skilful handling by India. India has recently taken some welcome tentative steps to review its Tibet policy. The first move was made in January 2008 when the statement issued at the end of Indian prime minister’s visit to China did not carry any reference to Tibet. It is not clear whether this was a deliberate policy move, or a one-off measure. The recent widespread disturbances in Tibet provide an opportunity for India to continue with its subtle policy shift.
India’s official statement on 15 March 2008 seems to be a step in the right direction. Firstly, clearly refuting official Chinese propaganda, it stated that “innocent people” had died in Lhasa. Secondly, by expressing its “hope that all those involved will work to improve the situation and remove the causes of such trouble in Tibet through dialogue and non-violent means,” New Delhi has conveyed its message to Beijing that there is merit in the demands of Tibetans, that the onus is on Beijing to find a solution, and that such a solution requires dialogue, not use of force.
In describing the Dalai Lama as a man of non-violence, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has clearly conveyed that India does not endorse the harsh and vituperative official Chinese denunciations of the Dalai Lama. China’s recent offensive and patronising approach and behaviour about India’s stand on Tibet, including summoning the Indian Ambassador in the middle of the night, required an appropriate riposte. It is good that India has put off Commerce Minister Kamal Nath’s visit to China. At the same time, India has sought to reassure China that India considers Tibet as “an autonomous region of China.” One hopes that in the coming months the government gives its Tibet policy a clearer strategic direction.
While formulating its policy on Tibet, India has to keep in mind that it is uniquely placed vis-à-vis Tibet, and therefore must have a unique policy that conforms to its national interests, irrespective of what the rest of the world says or does. No other country has as important stakes in peace and stability in Tibet as India does. A Tibet in ferment makes India’s Himalayan frontiers unstable and insecure. As a democratic country that is hosting such a large number of Tibetans, India has a legitimate interest in what happens in Tibet. Since developments in Tibet have direct consequences for India, Tibet cannot be, as the Left parties in India make out, just an internal matter of China.
If there is a severe crackdown on the Tibetans, it is likely to lead to an increased Chinese military presence in regions close to India’s borders, which would have implications for India’s own defence planning. It will also inevitably trigger off a fresh influx into India of Tibetan refugees, whom India would find it difficult to turn away on practical and humanitarian grounds.
In subsequent official statements and/or through authoritative but deniable unofficial channels, India could emphasize that while it firmly upholds the principles of supporting the territorial integrity of duly constituted states and non-interference in other states’ internal affairs, its own experience shows that the peace and stability of multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural societies requires dialogue and accommodation within a democratic framework.
Ethnic and separatist problems require political solutions that give every citizen the confidence of being an equal stakeholder in the state. India expects that China would put in place policies that would stabilize Tibet and give the Tibetan Diaspora in India the confidence that they can return to their homeland.
Traditionally, thousands of Indian pilgrims have made pilgrimages to Mount Kailash and Mansarovar lakes in Tibet without needing any permission from the Chinese authorities. If China can lay claim to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh on the grounds of its cultural, historical and spiritual links with Tibet, the case for India’s claim to Kailash-Mansarovar region on similar reasoning is probably more substantive. Secondly, if at any time in the future the People’s Republic of China were to give way to another entity India could well argue that it is not obliged to recognize Tibet as a part of any new political entity of China. Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario, but the Chinese would not miss such nuances and subtleties.
India needs to take a leaf out of China’s book in the matter of observance of solemn bilateral commitments. Just as China, contrary to the agreements with India in 2003 and 2005, has re-opened very aggressively its claim to Arunachal Pradesh, has still not fully accepted Sikkim as a part of India, and does not want an early settlement of the boundary question, India too should subtly reopen the whole question of the legitimacy of China’s claim to Tibet, which is the basic foundation for China to make any territorial claim on India.
There could be many ways in which India could introduce some nuances in its traditional policy. For example, India could state that it considers Tibet, as an autonomous region, to be a part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China — the implication being that it is only if Tibet is a truly autonomous region that India recognizes it as a part of China.
Ironically, China, in welcoming the Indian approach during the recent uprising, has given legitimacy to India’s unofficial policy shift. The Chinese should be made aware that subtle shifts in India’s Tibet policy will continue, and that India will remove the ambiguities in its Tibet policy only under the following conditions: firstly, if the situation on the ground permits it (very unlikely if China persists with its present repressive policies); secondly, if there is a definitive settlement of the boundary issue; and, finally, only as a quid pro quo for China recognizing all of Jammu & Kashmir as an integral part of India.
It is time for India to get out of its defensive mindset and timid approach in dealing with China. There are vital national security interests at stake. Relations with China must be handled from a strategic, not a legalistic, perspective. The approach India follows should be multi-dimensional. India does want better relations with China, but it must also evolve a calculated and calibrated policy to put China under some pressure to safeguard its interests and concerns.
Conclusion
By following repressive measures to suppress the protestations in Tibet, China seems to have stirred hornet’s nest. The widespread condemnation of Beijing’s repressive policies vis-à-vis Tibet does not augur well for China which is slated to become another superpower. Even several Chinese intellectuals have bravely raised their voices in China in response to the way Beijing was handling the development in Tibet. Far-sighted individuals within China today recognize that Beijing’s Tibet policy is at a turning point, and that the Dalai Lama has a critical and historic role to play.
Rather than listening to vested interests whose actions have led to the downfall of quite a few leaders in the past, it will be beneficial to all concerned if the leadership in Beijing pays heed to the saner voices within China who are calling for a review of China’s Tibet policy.
The current situation in Tibet is extremely fluid. So far the Tibetan movement has not assumed the semblance of the hardcore separatist movements which cause assassination, kidnapping, hijacking and terrorist activities. But in view of the recent spurt in violence, the possibility of the movement veering towards the bloody path can not be ruled out. If India becomes the launch pad of such activities, it may well become the Chinese target and the ensuing enmity can result in disaster. Even if India is innocent and it is held accountable for any disturbance in Tibet, China may suspect the Indian hand and the enmity can lead to serious repercussions. On the other hand, the USA may use India for its anti-China campaign. The issues likely to be raised are human rights violation and suppression of the Tibetans. Under these circumstances, India can easily fall an easy prey to US opportunism.
In the wake of these developments, India is called upon to be more vigilant. The present policy of the Indian government is seemingly appropriate. India may have sympathy for the Tibetans and respecting its tradition, New Delhi must continue giving refuge to the Tibetans. But at a time when China’s appreciation for India as a power has started and a slew of measures like joint army, navy and air exercises, education pact, air link and trade, etc are being pursued and India is seeking NSG support from China, India can not avoid the promising path of prosperity. India should persuade China to settle for the long standing boundary issue.
At the same time, India can use its good offices in arranging a meeting between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese rulers. In this connection, India can use the Russian connection. India, with the India-Russia-China axis dream, can spur Russia into diplomatic activism and settle for the Tibetan issue as well as the India-China boundary issue. This will certainly be helpful for the Tibetans to nurture their identity and culture. Besides, the India-China friendship will benefit not only Asia but also the whole world in the long run.
The long term psychological impact of developments in Tibet could be debilitating for China. It could prompt other estranged ethnic groups in China like the Uighurs to try to coalesce with Tibetan groups, both within China and abroad. The more repression there is within China, the less credible is China’s claim of ‘peaceful rise’. Tibet may well hold the key both to China’s internal stability and Hu Jintao’s political survival. No wonder Beijing is hysterical and considers Tibet a ‘life-and-death’ question. But if the Tibet issue remains unsolved for long, the Tibet time-bomb may blast any time and cause conflagration which can engulf India, too.
By Dr. Arvind Kumar, President, India water Foundation
