Swerve Off The Middle

November 2008 seems a cruel month for Tibetans. Thousands of miles away, British foreign secretary David Miliband stirred the Tibetan pot. "Like every other European Union member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China," Miliband recently declared on his website. He was essentially clearing the air that London recognises China's sovereignty, as against suzerainty, over Tibet.

Few world powers seem prepared to jeopardise relations with Beijing for Tibet. Not only is China's economic clout vital for countries requiring resuscitation in these days of debilitating financial crisis, its cooperation is necessary to tackle the thorny issues of Iran, North Korea or Sudan. Karma Choephel, speaker of the Tibetan parliament, told Outlook, "These are desperate times for us. We need to reflect, put our heads together to give our struggle a new direction."

As Outlook goes to press, there was no clarity about the resolution the special general meeting will adopt. But there's near-unanimous agreement that sooner rather than later the Tibetans are likely to return to a hardline policy (read seeking independence). Perhaps in anticipation, the Dalai Lama sought 'guru' India's intervention on Thursday. But a shift in Dharamshala could have grave implications for Delhi. "For," says Srinath Raghavan of King's College, London, "the Tibet issue is, in many ways, central to Sino-Indian relations, especially as seen from Beijing. China's sensitivities on Tibet have been a major factor in Beijing's relations with Delhi."

mong the first countries to establish diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China, India's relations with it have always been dogged by the Tibet issue. Initially, Delhi continued with London's ambiguity about China's sovereignty over Tibet. But the signing of the Trade and Transport Agreement with the 'Tibet Region of China' in 1954 saw Delhi formally recognising Beijing's sovereignty over the 'roof of the world'. As India and China girded themselves to resolve the boundary dispute in early 1959, Lhasa erupted in rebellion, prompting the Dalai Lama to flee to India. And then came the war of 1962.

"The Chinese saw India's claims to the McMahon line (courtesy the 1913 agreement) as part of a conspiracy to make Tibet an independent buffer state. It was this misperception, more than anything else, that led China to attack India in 1962," says Raghavan. It was indeed a misconception as India has consistently followed a "one-China policy", refusing to support Tibet's demand for independence even during the strained years of Beijing-Delhi relations.

Today, in comparison, the Sino-Indian relation is on an upswing, irrespective of Beijing's abortive attempts to block an India-specific waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in September. Not only are they 'strategic partners', the bilateral trade is about to touch the $40-billion mark. The contentious border dispute persists, but both Delhi and Beijing are committed to maintaining tranquility along the line separating them even as they try to hammer out a mutually acceptable agreement on it. "The Tibetan issue acts as an avoidable irritant," agrees former Indian diplomat T.C.A. Rangachari, who headed the East Asia division in the foreign ministry.

Many in the Indian establishment can't comprehend Beijing's reluctance to resolve the Tibetan issue, particularly as the current crop of Chinese leaders, unlike those in the past, allow greater religious freedom. In fact, Beijing actively supports building of places of worship. "How different is it from the genuine autonomy that the Dalai Lama has been seeking," asks a senior Indian official.

But Chinese officials suspect the Dalai Lama, claiming that he hasn't ever publicly declared his support for the "one-China" policy nor distanced himself from the 'splitists'. Its lack of flexibility now threatens to radicalise the Tibetan movement. "We are all advocating independence. If we carry on with the middle way policy we will be finished as a race," says Serta Tsultrim, the Tibetan parliament's youngest member.

Such remarks should worry India. Its pluralistic and democratic credentials preclude clamping down on Tibetan activism. "There are certain thresholds the Tibetans must not cross," cautions a senior Indian official, citing past Tibetan attempts to storm the Chinese embassy as a case in point. The official bottomline: acts of dare-devilry may compel India to revisit its Tibet policy.