Tibet is not China's 'internal affair'

Bhaskar Roy

Bhaskar Roy, who retired recently as a senior government official with decades of national and international experience, is an expert on international relations and Indian strategic interests.

Talking to Tibetan delegates at the recently concluded first session of the 11th National People’s Congress (NPC) in Beijing, President Hu Jintao cautioned “the stability in Tibet concerns the stability of the country, and the safety in Tibet concerns the safety of the country”.

Hu Jintao also urged the deputies from Tibet to look after the welfare of the Tibetans, improve work related to religious and ethnic groups, and maintain “social harmony” and stability in the region.

In the context of China’s usual response to a perceived threat, Hu Jintao was restrained. But his message was sharp and clear: no opposition will be tolerated.

Tibet Special: Blood on the roof of the world | Images: Trouble in Tibet

The Tibetan demonstrations in the run up to the Beijing Olympic games this August was not unexpected. But, perhaps, Beijing underestimated the scale of it. The Tibetan diaspora has long been calling for the boycott of the Beijing Olympics. Obviously, they did not expect that the games would be boycotted by any country, unlike the Moscow Olympics of 1980. What they really wanted was to highlight the issue of Tibetan situation on a wide scale and specifically draw international attention to human rights violations in Tibet, the Sinicisation of Tibet, and the “genocide” of Tibetan history and culture.

Independence for Tibet has now gone beyond realistic expectations, despite the abundance of proof that mainland China gradually through political machinations and military power, usurped the country Tibet once was.

That is the main reason that the 14th Dalai Lama abandoned in the mid-1980s the struggle for independence and opted for “real autonomy.”

The main backer for Tibet’s independence, the US, also changed tracks in the 1970s and 1980s following the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Washington and Beijing. Late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and opening up” policy in 1978-79 opened up a market which the world could hardly ignore. In return, these friends of the Tibetan people and the Dalai Lama diluted support for them.

Taking all this into consideration, the demand for “independence” was brought down to “autonomy”.

But while the “independence” script has been wiped off the slate, much else remains to be addressed by the Chinese, the Tibetans and the international community.

Both the pro-independence Tibetans and the Chinese government are going through extended difficult times. For the two, time is of essence. The protests that started in the Tibetan capital Lhasa on and around March 10, 2008 can be described as unprecedented since the 1959 uprising against the Chinese occupation, which eventually forced the Dalai Lama to flee to India with a group of his followers.

Then followed the exodus of Tibetan refugees from Tibet mainly to India. The Chinese crackdown of the Tibetans in 1959 was far stronger than what is being seen now. The Chinese security forces are still restraining themselves because of the upcoming Olympic games and the scrutiny of the international community.

In 1959, China was a closed country. Today, it is greatly interwoven with the world, at least economically. Nevertheless, Beijing is most likely to stifle the Tibetans in Tibet through overwhelming force. Interdependence brings compromise. But when its perceived interests are infringed upon, Beijing does not pull its punches.

The reason why the Tibetans are becoming anxious and restive is that unless something is done, they feel they would be obliterated in the Tibet Autonomous Region (AR) and the Tibetan autonomous prefectures in neighbouring provinces of China.

Over the years there have been increasing influx of Han settlers in Tibet, mainly in Lhasa. Tibetan businesses are being taken over by Han traders, who get special incentives from the government to settle in Tibet.

Education is getting increasingly Sinicised, with Chinese language pushing out the Tibetan language. Without Chinese language there are no jobs to be had. Tibetans do not rise to high positions in government jobs even in Tibet. Even those who enter government services are required to denounce the Dalai Lama and swear total allegiance to the Chinese government.

Tibetans should not have any quarrel with swearing their commitment to the Chinese government. This prevails in most countries in the world. But denouncing the Dalai Lama is another issue altogether.

The Chinese must, and do, understand that the Dalai Lama is not only the undisputed spiritual mentor of millions of Tibetans, but he lives in their breath and soul. Swayed by their own propaganda, the leaders in Beijing may think that they have won over a large number of Tibetans. But that is hardly the reality. Tibetan officials and deputies secretly worship the Dalai Lama in the confines of their homes.

China claims that its Constitution allows freedom of religion. This is far from true in reality. Practice of religion is strictly controlled by the state and the Party. Practice of religion, that is prayers, can be done in designated places. No one can preach religion. It is against the law.

Prohibition against even keeping a photograph of the Dalai Lama gives lie to the Chinese claim of freedom of religion. To the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama is Living God. The Chinese seen him politically as a separatist or “splittist”.

The Chinese authorities generally feel that after the death of the current Dalai Lama, the Tibetan problem would gradually fade away. From 2002 till now, the Dalai Lama’s delegation held six rounds of talks with the Chinese authorities on the issue of autonomy to Tibet and Tibetan areas outside the Autonomous Region. This shows the second compromise by the Dalai Lama. The original Tibet, known as the Greater Tibet, was sliced by the Chinese and amalgamated with neighbouring states like Gansu and Sichuan. The Dalai Lama does not claim Greater Tibet any longer.

But the talks did not yield any results. Suddenly, from around 2005, the Chinese authorities reverted to the hardline position, especially after the posting of the new Tibet Autonomous Region Party chairman Zhang Qinling. Zhang comes from the Communist Youth League (CYL), President Hu Jintao’s main constituency. He was supposed have subdued the Tibetans.

The Chinese have now accused the Dalai Lama of fomenting the riots in Lhasa. The Chinese fix a target and launch a relentless propaganda against him or her. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, still remains a favourite whipping boy of the Chinese official media on the Sino-Indian border issue.

The Dalai Lama is similarly targeted as “evil”, a man whose sole aim is break up China. In the 1980s, the Dalai Lama was projected as a “serpent,” and the official propaganda called for “crushing the serpent’s head.”

But the Chinese may be missing the woods for the trees. The Dalai Lama is the sobering factor of the Tibet issue. No one, not even the Chinese authorities, can deny that the Tibet issue is real and may be snowballing.

With the Chinese army and security personnel coming down heavily in Lhasa after the deadline for surrender to the so-called miscreants ended on Sunday-Monday midnight, the Dalai Lama put up his hands. He could not control the Tibetan-monks, nuns, laymen any longer.

For quite a few years now the Tibetan diaspora, especially the youth, have expressing disillusionment with the Dalai Lama’s “middle path” approach. They found that there was concession from one side only and the Tibetan people and culture was gradually being decimated by the Chinese.

The Tibetan youth have just formed a new organisation, the “Tibet Youth Uprising”. What this organisation would do or not do is not the issue, It only shows disenchantment of the Tibetan diaspora with the Dalai Lama’s approach of conceding to the Chinese step by step. This, however, does not mean these Tibetans are resorting to militancy.

The Chinese should take note of these developments. They can squash this uprising in Lhasa with the force of massive armed power. But they cannot ensure that they will be able to permanently do away with this problem.

On the other hand, the Chinese leaders have a problem. They naturally want that the Beijing Olympics in August goes through without untoward incidents. This is the Chinese Communist Party’s biggest show of pride, prestige, development and power. It is also a political issue internally.

The Committee for preparing for the Olympics was headed by Hu Jintao. He is the President, the Party Chief and Head of the Military. He has just handed over this responsibility at the NPC Session to Xi Jinping, hisselected successor. This shows how important is the success of the Olympics to the Chinese leadership.

How the game is conducted will have profound impact on the careers of both these men.

India, meanwhile, is caught in a difficult situation. It has the largest population of Tibetan refugees, and of course, the Dalai Lama. Groups of Tibetans are trying to march into Tibet from India. At the same time, the Chinese have not exactly decorated themselves with honour while dealing with the Tibetans.

Forced to take a stand, New Delhi diplomatically called for dialogue and peace. The Chinese pressure is mounting on the Indian government to restrain the Tibetans and close the borders to Tibet. There was no need for this. India’s policy is not to involve itself in Tibetan politics, and this has been demonstrated adequately.

Premier Wan Jiabao’s open message of March 18, 2008 to the government of India on the Tibetan demonstrators in India was decisively stern, and appropriately rejected by the people of India. Wen told a press conference in Beijing that he hoped that the government of India would follow agreements between the two countries and “handle the issue in a correct way”.

China’s way of dealing “correctly” with peaceful demonstrators is to kill them. No one has forgotten the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident.

India’s “correct” way is to deal with protestors with utmost restraint and humanely. China’s Premier must note the difference in dealing with such issues between China and the rest of the democratic world.

Whether China admits it or not, the Tibetan issue has never been, and still isn’t, an internal affair of China, simply because they are trying to bury a live civilisation.