“Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst”. – Samdhong Rinpoche, Prime Minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile
The great game of cat and mouse
If we set aside diplomatic rigmarole for a while, and face the facts, it will be disturbingly clear that China is not in the least interested in finding what we all refer to as a “solution”. That’s because, in the eyes of the Chinese, there is no “problem” to begin with! Let all those misguided thousands who have been fleeing the plateau come back home and share the good life of their compatriots here. Let them forget the demand for the so-called freedom, accept our regime with good manners, and dump the present Dalai Lama, the sole instigator. That’s all. So, where is the problem!
McLeodganj, of course, disagrees – sometimes strongly, but more often tactfully, as in recent years. The Tibetans sheltered in India are merely refugees, yearning to return to their homeland when freed from the Chinese rule one day. Will the struggle for survival (even in the fairly hospitable environs provided by India) break their inherent tranquility and peaceful disposition? One lone, towering figure has been standing between them and their breakdown– His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Their temporal leader and spiritual mentor commanding their unqualified faith and undiluted devotion. The one believed to have the divine blessing and also a vision for his people. He continues to strive to “make China see reason” and facilitate an honourable return of his people to their beloved homeland.
But, over half a century of efforts have proved futile. Even some world powers have failed to persuade or put pressure on China to give up its hold on Tibet. Confrontation with the aid of international support was more symbolic than substantial. Film stars and eminent devotees of His Holiness may bring glamour and more media coverage to the Tibetan struggle – but the Chinese nut is too hard to be cracked by demands, statements, candle-light processions.
The Dalai Lama too was compelled, in recent times, to acknowledge the political reality that “Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China”. His now famous doctrine of “middle path approach” is sheer pragmatism based on the acceptance of the inevitable. His demand for “high level” or “greater” autonomy meant that Tibet should have, except in foreign affairs and defence, the final authority over all other matters including culture, religion, language, “Tibetan environment”, etc. In a recent television interview, he reaffirmed categorically that “we are not seeking independence”, and for the sake of material development “we want to remain within the People’s Republic of China”.
However, China continues to greet all such overtures and statements by the Tibetan leader with complete mistrust, derision and a stinging harshness that would make a lesser mortal shrivel in despair. Its latest attack came in late June, a few days before the arrival of Lodi Gyari and his team from Dharamshala for talks at Beijing.
Qiangba Puncog, Communist Party leader and chairman of the regional government in Tibet, said: “the Dalai Lama travels around the world in Buddhist robes not for religious matters but to make the Tibet issue an international one and realise his political motives”. Quingba accused him of “seeking independence for Tibet in the guise of pursuing greater autonomy”.
Immediately after the unfruitful round of talks, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman rejected the description of Lodi Gyari and his team as “the special envoys of Dalai Lama” and called them “Tibetan compatriots”.
China has never shown any confusion in its attitude or strategy. In Tibet it does not feel like an aggressive tenant refusing to vacate. It has been waiting and trying for the isolation of the Dalai Lama from the centre-stage of the issue. China, the big cat, is in no hurry. It will again agree to hold talks, deride the Dalai Lama, make him the villain, wear down the Tibetan resistance. In the process, keep the world, the gentle, peace-craving India in particular, guessing.
So what if the exiled Tibetans never return? China has enough population for sending into Tibetan towns. An official of the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamshala made a revealing statement in March this year: “We are alarmed by the regular influx of Chinese migrant workers into Tibet… the train to Lhasa brings about five to six thousand people, while the number of passengers back to China is negligible. People who go back are genuine tourists. Those who stay back are fortune hunters… often elbowing aside Tibetans even from street vending.”
The official claimed that Lhasa’s population had swelled to 3,00,000 from 20,000 in 1950 and that the Chinese would “soon fulfil their target of settling 7,00,000 immigrants in Lhasa”.
No wonder, China has also refused the spiritual leader permission to visit Buddhist sites in China. The Chinese know that his presence there could open up the flood-gates of emotions in Tibet and take the freedom struggle to new heights. In China itself it could muster support for the cause. Even the Dalai Lama, a shrewd leader himself, must be aware of the need for such a fillip to his efforts. His statement in Melbourne in June that he “feared the Chinese authorities would arrest” him if he returned to his homeland was more like a bait than a possibility. Such an arrest, if at all and if ever, could indeed unleash a world-wide political tsunami on which a freedom struggle could come to the coast.
China is also waiting for the day when the aging Dalai Lama will pass away. It can then handle the demoralised Tibetans easily, like a cat pawing at a cornered mouse. Reports suggest that China has already initiated the process of searching for the next incarnation.
The Dalai Lama, a wise leader, obviously wants to ensure a minimum vacuum in the leadership after his departure. Hence the government-in-exile, voted directly by Tibetan refugees all over the world. His statements describing his position “as that of a semi-retired person” and that the struggle belongs to all the Tibetan fraternity and “not of the Dalai Lama alone”, are to be understood in this context. Besides, it has already been stated that the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama will be born in Tibet “only if he goes back to Tibet” – otherwise it will take place “in some independent country”.
The impatience of the younger generation of Tibetan refugees is growing. “In the past 48 years, Tibetans have made much noise, but failed to shake China”, said a Tibetan Youth Congress leader recently. “We find this struggle moving towards frustration”. It is only the overwhelming presence and leadership of the Dalai Lama that is keeping at bay the demand for a radical, if desperate, approach to the issue.
The gloom caused by the string of setbacks to the “dialogue process” and the hopes of over 1.4 lakh Tibetan exiles living in India and other countries was articulated a few days ago by Samdhong Rinpoche, Prime Minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile: “Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst”. Indeed.
(The author is a Special Representative of The Statesman based in Shimla)
