India's Tibet

In my years of travelling around the world talkingabout Tibet, it has been my experience that, more often than not, the audiencegenerally consist of people who are interested in Tibet and already know a greatdeal about Tibet. Many, in fact, turn out to be old friends and experts onTibet. So a lot of the time it is like 'preaching to the converted'.

Therefore, repeating basic facts about Tibet appears to be unnecessary and awaste of time. Nevertheless, one cannot help wondering how many in anyparticular audience or how many of your readers are truly aware that neverbefore 23 May 1951 - when a conquered and defeated Tibetan government was forcedto sign an unequal 'treaty' - the so-called "17 Point Agreement on Measuresfor the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" - had Tibet ever surrendered itsindependence.

Therefore, China's claim that 'Tibet has always been a part of China' has nobasis, whatsoever. In fact, Tibetan language - both spoken and written - have norelation whatsoever with Chinese. Tibet has its own National flag and NationalAnthem. While it is true various Chinese dynasties had on several occasionsinterfered in Tibetan affairs, it is equally true that various Tibetan kings andrulers had invaded China or otherwise exercised influence in Chinese affairs. Onone occasion in 763 AD, Tibetan troops even occupied Chang'an - the then Chinesecapital - deposed the Chinese Emperor who was not friendly towards the Tibetansand appointed the son of another branch of the royal family as Emperor. Thetraditional boundary between Tibet and China was demarcated by the Peace Treatyof 821 when it was decided that the two countries shall never interfere in eachother's affairs, believing that "Chinese shall be happy in the land ofChina and Tibetans shall be happy in the land of Tibet."

The text of this Treaty - containing these ancient words of wisdom - werecarved on three stone pillars - one pillar each for the two capitals of Lhasaand Chang'an and the third pillar for the border, which was placed at a placedcalled Gugu Meru. The third stone pillar has so far not been found. But thetexts of the other two stone pillars have been compared by independent westernand Tibetan scholars and have been found to match.

Long before the Mongols established the Yuan Dynasty in China in 1279; theTibetans established a tribute relationship with the Mongols in 1207 and thusaverted a military invasion by Genghis Khan. The ties of the Mongols with Tibetnot only pre-dated their conquest of China - it was an entirely separaterelationship. The Mongols never considered Tibet a Province of China. As suchChina's revised claim that 'Tibet has been a part of China since the Mongol ruleover China' has no substance. Tibet was recognised as an independent countryduring the Second World War, most importantly by China, USA and Great Britain.

This is evident from the fact that the US government had to send a mission toLhasa in 1943 to request the government of Tibet to permit the Allies to sendmilitary aid through Tibet to help China in its war with Japan. Needless to say,this would not have been necessary if, as the Chinese claim today, Tibet 'hasalways been an integral part of China'. As an independent country dedicated tothe principles of peace, Tibet granted permission to the Allies to send onlyhumanitarian assistance to China but no weapons of war. In retrospect, onecannot help feeling that Tibet is being punished today for its principledcommitment to peace and for remaining neutral during the War.

More evidence can be listed to prove that Tibet was an independent countrybefore the Communist Chinese invasion in 1949. However, for anyone willing toaccept reason - the above facts should be sufficient.

First Things First:

I have sub-titled this article 'A Case for Policy Review' and not 'The Case fora Policy Review'. I have chosen this awkward construction for a reason.Generally, when we talk about the need for a policy review on the issue of Tibetit is understood to mean a review of India's policy on Tibet. Or, in othercontexts, the policy of the United Nations or the United States - among others.

I am of the view that, first and foremost, it is the Tibetan people -especially the Tibetan government-in-Exile - who must review the so-called'Middle-Way' policy. This is the policy that must be changed - urgently - beforewe can call on other countries to review their policy on Tibet. For the pasttwenty years or more, we have been confusing our own people and also our friendsby first talking about 'settling for autonomy' and then of seeking 'associationwith China' and now of working for 'genuine autonomy within China'. Of course,no one has as yet told us who will define 'association', or 'autonomy' or'genuine'. Under the circumstances, one can only assume that it will be theChinese, since they hold all the cards. In any case, as things stand now, thereis no reason to believe that the Chinese even need to bother about definingthese terms.

When speaking of 'autonomy' we need to take into consideration the fact that, asfar as the Chinese are concerned, Tibetans are already supposed to have'autonomy'. The truncated half of Tibet - the so-called Tibet Autonomous Regionwhich today the rest of the world knows as 'Tibet' - as also other areas ofTibetan territory; have been labeled 'autonomous' one thing or another by theChinese. So the Chinese may well wonder what this offer of accepting 'autonomy'is all about when 'autonomy' is exactly what they think the Tibetans alreadyhave. It is true the so-called autonomy the Tibetans are supposed to enjoy underChinese rule is only in name. But what reason do we have to believe that the'genuine autonomy' of the future - if ever there is to be one - will be anydifferent ?

On the question of 'autonomy' another important factor to be born in mind isthat the people inside Tibet are sick and tired of 'autonomy' with Chinesecharacteristics and they want no more of it - never. I believe the only hope forthe Tibetan people and the survival of our religion, our culture and our land isthe restoration of Tibetan independence. My reasons are simple andstraightforward.

1. In the first place, I hold that the few Tibetans in exile do not have themandate to change the goal. When we left Tibet - we did so with the sole purposeof continuing the struggle for independence. We also do not have the right toforeclose the options of future generations of Tibetans.

2. Secondly, I believe China's strategic, political and economic reasons forinvading Tibet are far too important and that they will never willinglyrelinquish their hold on Tibet. They will certainly not be talked out of leavingTibet and returning Tibet to the Tibetan people in whatever shape or form.

3. It is all very well for us to call for negotiations with China, and I believethe various proposals put forward by His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the Chinese- in particular the 'Five-Point Peace Proposal' - are all well-intended. Theproblem is that the Communist dictatorship in China will not respond favourablyto any of these proposals. For them compromise is a sign of weakness and theywill continue to expect and demand further concessions.

4. What is more, at present China has no need to negotiate with the Tibetangovernment-in-Exile. In all these years no one has yet to answer this one simplequestion: Why should the Chinese talk to us? Tibet is firmly under theircontrol. No government in the world has the courage to question this. We are nota threat to their position in Tibet. Why then should the Chinese surrender to usany part of their complete, unquestioned and unchallenged control over Tibet?

5. But even if the impossible should happen and, for some temporary expedience,China should enter into an agreement with us - what reason do we have to believethat China will abide by the terms of such an agreement ? None, whatsoever. Ourbitter and bloody experience has been that China will not abide by the terms ofany agreement once the purpose for which the agreement was signed has beenserved. This is exactly what China did with the so-called '17-Point Agreement'.

The reality is that China is playing for time and we areplaying into their hands. Therefore, before we call on India to review itspolicy on Tibet and before we can expect India and the world to support us - Ibelieve it is absolutely necessary for us Tibetans to make up our minds as towhat it is we want. Having said this, I hasten to add, if I am wrong on thedismal picture I have painted above - no man will be happier than I. As a matterof fact, in weaker moments, I hope and wish that I am wrong. That the Chinesewill one day - and it better be soon - wake up to the fact that they havecommitted untold atrocities in Tibet; that in the very first place they have noright to be in Tibet and that the Tibetan people don't want them there; andapologise and leave Tibet.

But then the harsh reality of our tragic past and the harsher reality of theever deteriorating situation in Tibet together remind me that the Chinese arenot going to leave Tibet. That we are not facing a multiple-choice problem.Indeed, that we are faced with a struggle for survival - a struggle for life anddeath where there are no choices.

This is the brutal reality that the Tibetan people and the Tibetan governmentmust accept. The Chinese are not offering us any choices. It is not a questionof getting the 'right' proposal with the 'correct' wording into place.

China does not need the Tibetan people. China only needs Tibet

On the question of India's policy on Tibet, I wish to make the case thattoday India has more at stake in the future of Tibet than even the Tibetanpeople. And, therefore, India should review its Tibet policy regardless of whatthe Tibetan people decide to do. I hope I do not sound ungrateful or evenmanipulative and/or provocative in saying this.

My reasons for believing that today India has more at stake in the future ofTibet than the Tibetan people are sincere and simple: For one, Tibet will neverbe free when in the first place freedom is no longer our goal. Even otherwise,much as we wish Tibet to be free; much as we want and long for Tibet to be free- today we are faced with the real and urgent danger of the Tibetansdisappearing as a people and as a distinct culture. After death there is no painand certainly no need for freedom or for land - especially for a people who feedtheir dead to vultures. What use is environmental protection or human rights tothe dead ?

On the other hand, India cannot and will not disappear as a nation.

However, with the death of Tibet, India will be left with a wound extendingfrom Ladakh in the West to Arunachal in the East - a wound extending through theentire Himalayan range - some 2,500 km - for which there will be no cure. I neednot elaborate on the far-reaching implications of such a wound, which willforever eat into India like a deadly cancer. After all, India has already had aforetaste of this wound for the past four decades. The need to defend India'slong and difficult borders with Tibet is a major burden on India's economy andan obstacle to socio-economic development in the country. For these and otherreasons I cannot understand India's policy on Tibet.

If it were in India's interest to accept and concede that 'Tibet is anautonomous region of China' (this has been India's position on the status ofTibet since Nehru's time) - for the Tibetan people this will not be lesspainful, but at least it will be comprehensible. After all, foreign policy isnot merely the 'art of the possible' - foreign policy is made on the grounds ofnational self-interest - or at least the perception of national self-interest.That such perceptions are often misguided and mistaken is an entirely differentissue.

The Way Ahead:

We now have two issues before us. One, for the Tibetan people to make a cleardecision about our goal and our struggle. The second issue is for the people ofIndia to make a firm and clear decision about India's long-term interestregarding Tibet. If India decides that it is in India's interest to see Tibetfree - then the next step is for us together to decide what we are willing to dofor our mutual interest.

This is to say that Tibetans should stop passively appealing for help.

At the same time India must stop merely pitying the Tibetan people.

India must start an active partnership with the Tibetans. In so doing theremust be a clear understanding on both sides that in the short-term there will bea heavy price to pay and enormous sacrifices to be made.

However, whatever the difficulty, we must never lose sight of two things:that the long-term rewards will be lasting and worthy of any sacrifice; and,more importantly, that the struggle for the independence of Tibet must never begiven up because in the end this is a question of right and wrong. Victory isimportant but it is secondary to the fact that we are fighting an evil for therestoration of Truth, Justice and Freedom.

On the other hand, if as a result of an informed national debate India shoulddecide that it is indeed in India's long-term interest to have China and notTibet as her northern neighbour - then so be it. I, for one, will return toTibet. As a boy I made myself one promise. If by dedicating my entire life tothe struggle I cannot free my country from the clutches of the Chinese, then atthe very least I will die in Tibet.

Of course, I will never forget my gratitude to India. TheTibetan people are forever indebted to India for two reasons: in the past forthe Dharma and today for Refuge. But the problem is that at this moment therejust isn't enough awareness in India about events and developments in Tibet andtheir implications for India to enable the Indian people to make an informeddecision on this important and difficult issue. I am aware India has many otherpressing problems to worry about - from poverty and basic education to Kashmirand Pakistan. However, focusing on these problems alone is not enough.

Take, for example, the case of a person suffering from a serious disease as aresult of which he is running a high fever. Would it be enough to worry onlyabout the fever and to focus one's attention only on bringing the temperaturedown ? Wouldn't it be more important, at some point, to seek to cure the diseaseitself ? India's current economic problems have much to with the huge cost ofdefending India's long and troubled frontier with Tibet.

Even in the case of the thorny problem in Kashmir and with Pakistan - it isnot exactly a secret that China has been supplying Pakistan with weapons,military know-how and funding. Without China's control over Tibet the logisticsof sending weapons to Pakistan will become an altogether different problem. Aglance at any map is enough to see that the Karakorum Highway runs through Tibetto Pakistan. More importantly, when China no longer controls Tibet; helpingPakistan will become an altogether different priority. The level of ignoranceand misunderstanding about Tibet in India was evident during the escape of the17th Karmapa to India. It was painful for us to read in certain sections of theIndian press; reports and letters suggesting that the Tibetan refugees in Indiaare a liability and a security risk to India.

There still seems to be speculation that the presence of the 17th Karmapa isa hindrance to India's relations with China.

The long-term strategic importance of Tibet to India should be evident even tothose who wish to sacrifice everything on the alter of 'friendship' with China.The presence of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-Exile;and to a lesser extent the rest of the Tibetan refugee community, is at the veryleast a bargaining factor India can use in its dealings with China. The same isnow true of such a prominent figure as the 17th Karmapa. Even at the level ofindividual Tibetan refugees, it is not known and, therefore, not appreciatedthat Tibetan blood has been shed along with India's bravest sons in all the warsIndia has fought ever since Tibetans sought refuge in India. We are fond oftalking of unsung heroes.

These Tibetans are the true unrecognised and unsung heroes. Yet they continue tofight and to die for India - believing that it is as much in the interest oftheir beloved Tibet as their host country to continue to serve in the armedforces. These brave men and women - as also their families and loved ones; alongwith the rest of the Tibetan refugee community - believe that defending India'ssecurity is but a small way of expressing their gratitude to India.

India's Tibet:

Finally, a few words about the topic of this article. Sofar I have been commenting on the sub-title, which is about policy review,without saying a word about what I mean by calling Tibet as 'India's Tibet'.

There is a Chinese propaganda magazine called China's Tibet. This is aclear example of how insecure China feels - not only about its hold over Tibetbut more fundamentally even about its claims over Tibet. Fifty years after theinvasion, forty years after the flight of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetangovernment; with an estimated half-a-million troops in Tibet and not a singleforeign government openly questioning China's military and colonial occupationof Tibet, it is indeed instructive that China still feels the need to call Tibetas "China's Tibet". No doubt, in addition to trying to reassurethemselves, this is primarily an effort to convince the world that Tibet'belongs' to China. In my view it has precisely the opposite effect.

Be that as it may. I have often wondered why India doesn't stake its claim onTibet. Between China - which seeks to exterminate the Tibetan people and to wipeout Tibetan religion and culture; and India - which gave Tibet the Buddha Dharmaand has helped to save Tibetan religion and culture - there is no doubt; Indiahas the greater claim. It is like the story of young Prince Siddhartha who savesthe swan his cousin Prince Devadatta has shot. The claim of the latter rests onthe grounds of having shot the swan. On the other hand, Prince Siddhartha - thefuture Buddha - stakes his claim on the grounds of having saved the life of thewounded swan. The King rightly awards the swan to Prince Siddhartha.

In today's world of realpolitik and spineless world leaders, we could hardlyhope for such a decisive verdict.