There has been much hullabaloo about the 14th Dalai Lama’s internationally-publicised decision last week to retreat from a political life, although Tibetan Buddhism’s most important monk did not fail to state that he would remain a servant of Tibet’s cause. Basically, he would be around in order to serve. Seen in all its dimensions, this is a straightforward postulate, and it is surprising that the astute Communists in Beijing have got all worked up, calling the Dharamsala announcement a “trick”.
Why a trick is not clear. Given to circumspection, India has not reacted. But no matter which way one looks at an issue linked to the Dalai Lama, relations between India and China come into play. This is due to the Chinese Communists’ deep suspicion of any individual, movement, or tendency — social, political or spiritual — that has the potential to challenge their authority.
After Tibet’s abortive anti-Beijng uprising of 1959, the Dalai Lama fled to India. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru gave him refuge on account of his exalted religious status on condition that he engage in no political activity since India recognised Tibet as an autonomous region of China, not a sovereign state. But Communist China was not amused. The condition for the Dalai Lama’s stay in India has been scrupulously followed. No anti-China politics has been pursued from Indian soil, but the Chinese remain suspicious. Indeed, India accepting the Tibetan guru as a refugee in 1959 appears to be the proximate reason for the downturn in Sino-Indian ties. Since then relations have fundamentally lacked warmth. As the Dalai Lama is the temporal and spiritual head of the Tibetan people by virtue of being the leading light of the dominant sect of Tibetan Buddhism, his very presence in the midst of his people is imbued with a political meaning. This is what Beijing resents. (It is rightly surmised that Beijing is waiting for the spiritual leader to die as it expects the intensity of the Tibetan cause to die down with him gone.) Besides, Tenzin Gyatso, the present incarnation of the Dalai Lama, has emerged as an international icon of peace and is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. None of this is to Beijing’s liking. It does not believe him when he maintains that he does not espouse Tibetan independence and only seeks genuine autonomy for Tibet. The reason is the Dalai Lama says all Tibetans in China (dispersed in several provinces) should be brought under one umbrella.
After nine rounds of talks spread over decades between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and those of the Chinese government, there has been no forward movement as the Chinese posture remains frozen. While not playing a political role from Indian soil (except by his mere presence, which is a uniting factor for Tibetans worldwide), the Dalai Lama has said he will no longer be associated with politics. There is no dichotomy here. The spiritual leader’s international travels arouse immense sympathy for Tibet’s cause. That is on account of China’s intransigence and the brutality shown toward the Tibetan people, and would have been the case even if the Dalai Lama had not lived in India. Also, the spiritual leader’s representatives engage in dialogue with the Chinese — clearly a political act. If the grand monk withdraws from this political role, does it really matter? So long as he is alive, the world will continue to warm to the cause of Tibetan independence. After him too, the issue is unlikely to die, but he brings inordinate charisma to the table. When he is not around to show the way, perhaps one of his followers can step up to the plate (the 15th Dalai Lama incarnate, or just another Tibetan in search of freedom for his land). Beijing’s Tibet problem isn’t going away in a hurry.