Long before Lhasa exploded last month, Tibet's special role became even more sensitive when the Dalai Lama—revered as the 14th reincarnation of the Bodhisattva—announced last autumn that he may forego the ancient rites and appoint a successor before his death. The change in the centuries-old tradition—of searching for a reincarnation of the Dalai Lama among Tibetan boys whose birth coincides with the previous incumbent's death—was necessary to ensure the preservation of the Dalai Lama system, His Holiness said during his November visit to Japan. The reason: the Tibetan people would not support a successor chosen by China after his death. "If my death comes when we are still in refugee status, then logically my reincarnation will come from outside Tibet," the Dalai Lama explained later the same month in Amritsar.
So India may find itself playing host to the next Dalai Lama, the 15th in line, who if chosen as suggested by Tibet's current spiritual leader would be rejected by China. Beijing insists that the Dalai Lama's successor must be selected after his death and must have its final approval. This will buttress Beijing's claims that Tibet is an integral part of China.
China sees the current Dalai Lama's presence on Indian soil as an unfortunate historical legacy for which the two countries have paid a heavy price. "It is something we cannot take back," says Wu Yongnian, an expert on India at the Shanghai International Affairs Research Institute. The Tibet issue has continued to hobble Indian and Chinese efforts to resolve lingering border disputes; the mid-March riots in Lhasa and other Tibetan-populated areas of China adding a new strain on the relationship. Beijing insists the violence was masterminded by "the Dalai Lama clique".
While India has not allowed large-scale public protests over the Tibetan unrest, the mere presence of the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamshala has given New Delhi some leverage in its relationship with Beijing. Some Indian strategists have called on New Delhi to make use of the "Tibet card" it holds.
"Let me tell those politicians that Tibet is not a card but a burden," says Sun Shihai, vice-director of the Asia-Pacific Research Institute under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. "No wise Indian politician would choose to benefit from the Tibetan problem because it would only lead to tension between our two countries."
Sun points out that India has its own share of ethnic strife. "As two big countries with similar problems, China and India should stand by each other in defence of their interests." Wu says China has learned to live with the fact that, as a democratic country, India allows room for a divergence of opinions, including on the Tibetan issue. "What is important for us is what the government says and does," he asserts. "New Delhi has the same priorities of feeding and looking after the well-being of millions of people as Beijing does. It would run counter to India's interests to reverse the growing tide of bilateral trade by interfering in Tibet."
China's top foreign policy official has sought India's "understanding and support" in handling the Tibetan crisis, in a notice posted on the foreign ministry's website. State Councillor Dai Bingguo called India's national security advisor M.K. Narayanan last week to brief him on the situation in Lhasa and elsewhere. Publicly, Beijing has praised New Delhi's efforts to balance good relations with China with the hospitality it extends to the Tibetan government-in-exile. "The Tibetan issue is a very sensitive one in our relations with India," Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said last month. "We appreciate the position and the steps taken by the Indian government in handling Tibetan independence activities masterminded by the Dalai clique."
Yet, observers say, in trying to substantiate the historical argument for bolstering its claim to Tibet, Beijing has renewed its demand for Arunachal Pradesh. After all, the Tawang tract here is the birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama.
