In my years of travelling around the world talking about Tibet, it has been my experience that, more often than not, the audience generally consist of people who are interested in Tibet and already know a great deal about Tibet. Many, in fact, turn out to be old friends and experts on Tibet. So a lot of the time it is like 'preaching to the converted'.
Therefore, repeating basic facts about Tibet appears to be unnecessary and a waste of time. Nevertheless, one cannot help wondering how many in any particular audience or how many of your readers are truly aware that never before 23 May 1951 - when a conquered and defeated Tibetan government was forced to sign an unequal 'treaty' - the so-called "17 Point Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" - had Tibet ever surrendered its independence.
Therefore, China's claim that 'Tibet has always been a part of China' has no basis, whatsoever. In fact, Tibetan language - both spoken and written - have no relation whatsoever with Chinese. Tibet has its own National flag and National Anthem. While it is true various Chinese dynasties had on several occasions interfered in Tibetan affairs, it is equally true that various Tibetan kings and rulers had invaded China or otherwise exercised influence in Chinese affairs. On one occasion in 763 AD, Tibetan troops even occupied Chang'an - the then Chinese capital - deposed the Chinese Emperor who was not friendly towards the Tibetans and appointed the son of another branch of the royal family as Emperor. The traditional boundary between Tibet and China was demarcated by the Peace Treaty of 821 when it was decided that the two countries shall never interfere in each other's affairs, believing that "Chinese shall be happy in the land of China and Tibetans shall be happy in the land of Tibet."
The text of this Treaty - containing these ancient words of wisdom - were carved on three stone pillars - one pillar each for the two capitals of Lhasa and Chang'an and the third pillar for the border, which was placed at a placed called Gugu Meru. The third stone pillar has so far not been found. But the texts of the other two stone pillars have been compared by independent western and Tibetan scholars and have been found to match.
Long before the Mongols established the Yuan Dynasty in China in 1279; the Tibetans established a tribute relationship with the Mongols in 1207 and thus averted a military invasion by Genghis Khan. The ties of the Mongols with Tibet not only pre-dated their conquest of China - it was an entirely separate relationship. The Mongols never considered Tibet a Province of China. As such China's revised claim that 'Tibet has been a part of China since the Mongol rule over China' has no substance. Tibet was recognised as an independent country during 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 to
Lhasa in 1943 to request the government of Tibet to permit the Allies to send
military 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 'has
always been an integral part of China'. As an independent country dedicated to
the principles of peace, Tibet granted permission to the Allies to send only
humanitarian assistance to China but no weapons of war. In retrospect, one
cannot help feeling that Tibet is being punished today for its principled
commitment to peace and for remaining neutral during the War.
More evidence can be listed to prove that Tibet was an independent country before the Communist Chinese invasion in 1949. However, for anyone willing to accept 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 for a 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 Tibet it is understood to mean a review of India's policy on Tibet. Or, in other contexts, 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 - before
we can call on other countries to review their policy on Tibet. For the past
twenty years or more, we have been confusing our own people and also our friends
by first talking about 'settling for autonomy' and then of seeking 'association
with 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 the
Chinese, since they hold all the cards. In any case, as things stand now, there
is no reason to believe that the Chinese even need to bother about defining
When speaking of 'autonomy' we need to take into consideration the fact that, as far as the Chinese are concerned, Tibetans are already supposed to have 'autonomy'. The truncated half of Tibet - the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region which today the rest of the world knows as 'Tibet' - as also other areas of Tibetan territory; have been labeled 'autonomous' one thing or another by the Chinese. So the Chinese may well wonder what this offer of accepting 'autonomy' is all about when 'autonomy' is exactly what they think the Tibetans already have. It is true the so-called autonomy the Tibetans are supposed to enjoy under Chinese 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 any different ?
On the question of 'autonomy' another important factor to be born in mind is that the people inside Tibet are sick and tired of 'autonomy' with Chinese characteristics and they want no more of it - never. I believe the only hope for the Tibetan people and the survival of our religion, our culture and our land is the restoration of Tibetan independence. My reasons are simple and straightforward.
1. In the first place, I hold that the few Tibetans in exile do not have the mandate to change the goal. When we left Tibet - we did so with the sole purpose of continuing the struggle for independence. We also do not have the right to foreclose the options of future generations of Tibetans.
2. Secondly, I believe China's strategic, political and economic reasons for invading Tibet are far too important and that they will never willingly relinquish their hold on Tibet. They will certainly not be talked out of leaving Tibet 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 believe the various proposals put forward by His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the Chinese - in particular the 'Five-Point Peace Proposal' - are all well-intended. The problem is that the Communist dictatorship in China will not respond favourably to any of these proposals. For them compromise is a sign of weakness and they will continue to expect and demand further concessions.
4. What is more, at present China has no need to negotiate with the Tibetan government-in-Exile. In all these years no one has yet to answer this one simple question: Why should the Chinese talk to us? Tibet is firmly under their control. No government in the world has the courage to question this. We are not a threat to their position in Tibet. Why then should the Chinese surrender to us any 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 believe that China will abide by the terms of such an agreement ? None, whatsoever. Our bitter and bloody experience has been that China will not abide by the terms of any agreement once the purpose for which the agreement was signed has been served. This is exactly what China did with the so-called '17-Point Agreement'.
The reality is that China is playing for time and we are playing into their hands. Therefore, before we call on India to review its policy on Tibet and before we can expect India and the world to support us - I believe it is absolutely necessary for us Tibetans to make up our minds as to what it is we want. Having said this, I hasten to add, if I am wrong on the dismal picture I have painted above - no man will be happier than I. As a matter of fact, in weaker moments, I hope and wish that I am wrong. That the Chinese will one day - and it better be soon - wake up to the fact that they have committed untold atrocities in Tibet; that in the very first place they have no right to be in Tibet and that the Tibetan people don't want them there; and apologise and leave Tibet.
But then the harsh reality of our tragic past and the harsher reality of the ever deteriorating situation in Tibet together remind me that the Chinese are not 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 and death where there are no choices.
This is the brutal reality that the Tibetan people and the Tibetan government
must accept. The Chinese are not offering us any choices. It is not a question
of 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 that
today India has more at stake in the future of Tibet than even the Tibetan
people. And, therefore, India should review its Tibet policy regardless of what
the Tibetan people decide to do. I hope I do not sound ungrateful or even
manipulative and/or provocative in saying this.
My reasons for believing that today India has more at stake in the future of Tibet than the Tibetan people are sincere and simple: For one, Tibet will never be 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 Tibetans disappearing as a people and as a distinct culture. After death there is no pain and certainly no need for freedom or for land - especially for a people who feed their dead to vultures. What use is environmental protection or human rights to the 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 extending
from Ladakh in the West to Arunachal in the East - a wound extending through the
entire Himalayan range - some 2,500 km - for which there will be no cure. I need
not elaborate on the far-reaching implications of such a wound, which will
forever eat into India like a deadly cancer. After all, India has already had a
foretaste of this wound for the past four decades. The need to defend India's
long and difficult borders with Tibet is a major burden on India's economy and
an obstacle to socio-economic development in the country. For these and other
reasons I cannot understand India's policy on Tibet.
If it were in India's interest to accept and concede that 'Tibet is an autonomous region of China' (this has been India's position on the status of Tibet since Nehru's time) - for the Tibetan people this will not be less painful, but at least it will be comprehensible. After all, foreign policy is not merely the 'art of the possible' - foreign policy is made on the grounds of national self-interest - or at least the perception of national self-interest. That such perceptions are often misguided and mistaken is an entirely different issue.
The Way Ahead:
We now have two issues before us. One, for the Tibetan people to make a clear decision about our goal and our struggle. The second issue is for the people of India to make a firm and clear decision about India's long-term interest regarding Tibet. If India decides that it is in India's interest to see Tibet free - then the next step is for us together to decide what we are willing to do for 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 there must be a clear understanding on both sides that in the short-term there will be a 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 be
given up because in the end this is a question of right and wrong. Victory is
important but it is secondary to the fact that we are fighting an evil for the
restoration of Truth, Justice and Freedom.
On the other hand, if as a result of an informed national debate India should decide that it is indeed in India's long-term interest to have China and not Tibet as her northern neighbour - then so be it. I, for one, will return to Tibet. As a boy I made myself one promise. If by dedicating my entire life to the struggle I cannot free my country from the clutches of the Chinese, then at the very least I will die in Tibet.
Of course, I will never forget my gratitude to India. The Tibetan people are forever indebted to India for two reasons: in the past for the Dharma and today for Refuge. But the problem is that at this moment there just isn't enough awareness in India about events and developments in Tibet and their implications for India to enable the Indian people to make an informed decision on this important and difficult issue. I am aware India has many other pressing problems to worry about - from poverty and basic education to Kashmir and Pakistan. However, focusing on these problems alone is not enough.
Take, for example, the case of a person suffering from a serious disease as a result of which he is running a high fever. Would it be enough to worry only about the fever and to focus one's attention only on bringing the temperature down ? Wouldn't it be more important, at some point, to seek to cure the disease itself ? India's current economic problems have much to with the huge cost of defending India's long and troubled frontier with Tibet.
Even in the case of the thorny problem in Kashmir and with Pakistan - it is not exactly a secret that China has been supplying Pakistan with weapons, military know-how and funding. Without China's control over Tibet the logistics of sending weapons to Pakistan will become an altogether different problem. A glance at any map is enough to see that the Karakorum Highway runs through Tibet to Pakistan. More importantly, when China no longer controls Tibet; helping Pakistan will become an altogether different priority. The level of ignorance and misunderstanding about Tibet in India was evident during the escape of the 17th Karmapa to India. It was painful for us to read in certain sections of the Indian press; reports and letters suggesting that the Tibetan refugees in India are a liability and a security risk to India.
There still seems to be speculation that the presence of the 17th Karmapa is
a hindrance to India's relations with China.
The long-term strategic importance of Tibet to India should be evident even to those 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 very least a bargaining factor India can use in its dealings with China. The same is now true of such a prominent figure as the 17th Karmapa. Even at the level of individual Tibetan refugees, it is not known and, therefore, not appreciated that Tibetan blood has been shed along with India's bravest sons in all the wars India has fought ever since Tibetans sought refuge in India. We are fond of talking of unsung heroes.
These Tibetans are the true unrecognised and unsung heroes. Yet they continue to fight and to die for India - believing that it is as much in the interest of their beloved Tibet as their host country to continue to serve in the armed forces. These brave men and women - as also their families and loved ones; along with the rest of the Tibetan refugee community - believe that defending India's security is but a small way of expressing their gratitude to India.
Finally, a few words about the topic of this article. So far 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 a
clear example of how insecure China feels - not only about its hold over Tibet
but more fundamentally even about its claims over Tibet. Fifty years after the
invasion, forty years after the flight of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan
government; with an estimated half-a-million troops in Tibet and not a single
foreign government openly questioning China's military and colonial occupation
of Tibet, it is indeed instructive that China still feels the need to call Tibet
as "China's Tibet". No doubt, in addition to trying to reassure
themselves, 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 on Tibet. Between China - which seeks to exterminate the Tibetan people and to wipe out Tibetan religion and culture; and India - which gave Tibet the Buddha Dharma and has helped to save Tibetan religion and culture - there is no doubt; India has the greater claim. It is like the story of young Prince Siddhartha who saves the swan his cousin Prince Devadatta has shot. The claim of the latter rests on the grounds of having shot the swan. On the other hand, Prince Siddhartha - the future Buddha - stakes his claim on the grounds of having saved the life of the wounded swan. The King rightly awards the swan to Prince Siddhartha.
In today's world of realpolitik and spineless world leaders, we could hardly hope for such a decisive verdict.
For in-depth, objective and more importantly balanced journalism, Click here to subscribe to Outlook Magazine