Pinching the dragon’s tail on future of Tibet

The recent visit of the United States (US) Congressional delegation to Dharamshala and the Dalai Lama’s visit to New York have catapulted Tibet to newspaper headlines. The seven-member US Congressional delegation led by representative Michael McCaul was remarkable in several respects. A bipartisan delegation at a time of sharp polarisation in American politics, it included Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and chose to visit Dharamshala even though the Dalai Lama was due to leave for the US in a few days. The visit coincided with the US Congress passing a bill, “Promoting a Resolution of the Tibet-China Conflict Act”, or the Resolve Tibet Act, which has since gone to the president for his assent. On its return to New Delhi, the delegation was received by Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi, signalling that the Indian government is not uncomfortable with the US choosing Indian soil to pinch the dragon’s tail.

In the past, the US generally followed the old British line of recognising Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. It provided training and assistance to the Khampa rebels in the 1950s, but in the years of the grand camaraderie of President Nixon and Henry Kissinger with Mao Zedong, Tibet was largely forgotten. The downswing in their relations started in the Trump presidency. Trade disputes, technology theft, China’s aggressive build-up in the South China Sea, threats to Taiwan and now the military assistance to Russia in the Ukraine War have soured relations and ushered in a new cold war. Tibet was an issue waiting to be reopened by the US.

The first US Tibet Policy Act of 2002 had been a mild articulation of the need to protect Tibet’s water security and its environment, promised assistance to Tibetan refugees and urged China to engage with the Dalai Lama. The next act, in 2020, defined the US government’s stand on the Dalai Lama’s succession, calling it a purely religious matter to be decided by his followers and threatening any Chinese official interfering in the process with sanctions. It also declared that China would not be permitted to open another consulate in the US unless it allowed one in Lhasa.

The new US Tibet bill is a quantum jump from the two earlier acts. It defines the territory and international status of Tibet, marking a qualitative change in US policy. It states that the territory of Tibet extends beyond the Tibetan Autonomous Region and includes Tibetan areas in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces; that the conflict between China and Tibet is unresolved and Tibet’s legal status is to be determined according to international law. It calls upon the US government to counter Chinese disinformation about Tibet’s history and institutions, such as China’s outlandish claim that Tibet has been a part of it since ancient times. McCaul told the media that the bill reaffirms America’s support for Tibet’s right of self-determination.

Little wonder that China is rattled by the visit and has launched a vitriolic tirade against the “separatist Dalai Lama clique” as it calls it, accusing him of indulging in anti-China separatist activities under the cloak of religion and warning the US not to play the Tibet card in violation of the one-China policy. A foreign office spokesperson urged the US not to sign the bill into law or support Tibet’s independence and warned that China would take resolute measures.

How does all this affect India? China’s repression in Tibet and escalating claims on Indian territory have belied the expectations on which India had framed its stand in the 1950s. China has never missed an opportunity to counsel India on Kashmir. Despite such provocations, hostile actions and broken promises, India has clung to its policy of recognising Tibet as a part of China.

India has paid a heavy price for giving asylum to the Dalai Lama and the thousands of Tibetan refugees who run the Central Tibetan Administration, the putative government-in-exile. Tibet is a sensitive issue for China since it claims it as its imperial legacy and now exploits its water and other natural resources. India contends that the presence of the Tibetan government-in-exile should not annoy China and that Tibet is not an issue in India-China relations. But with the US raising matters of concern to the Tibetan people, India faces a dilemma. Should it let the international discourse on important questions concerning Tibet slip into America’s hands? One of these is the ageing Dalai Lama’s succession, on which the US has taken a very strong stand. It is time for India to give some sage counsel to China and recover the initiative on Tibet.

There will be no dearth of Indians questioning the advisability of India taking the cue from the US to change its Tibet policy. America’s unreliability is well known, as are the risks of provoking China. But Tibet accounts for a considerable length of India’s border with China and who rules it will always remain critical to India’s well-being and security. The current US-China confrontation is an opportunity for India to assert its interests and develop its Tibet policy in its logical progression.

India’s relations with China have been cold since Galwan and there is little chance of a thaw in the immediate future. By not going to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit and receiving the US delegation in New Delhi, PM Modi has made his leanings explicit. The external affairs ministry rejected China’s protest, reiterating India’s stand on the Dalai Lama being an honoured guest who is free to conduct his religious activities in India. It remains to be seen if India will now take the next logical step of telling China not to interfere in the process of the Dalai Lama’s succession. This would be a good beginning towards a more assertive Tibet policy.

Dilip Sinha, formerly India’s ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva, is theauthor of Imperial Games in Tibet. The views expressed are personal