Context:
The visit of a delegation of U.S. lawmakers to Dharamshala clearly signaled its purpose. This delegation arrived just days after the ‘Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act’ passed in both Houses of the U.S. Congress and awaited President Joe Biden’s signature. The delegation included both Democrat and Republican co-authors of the Bill, invited by the Central Tibetan Administration, which oversees the affairs of the global Tibetan diaspora, for a special facilitation.
Relevance:
GS2-
- India and its Neighborhood- Relations
- Bilateral, Regional and Global Groupings and Agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests
Mains Question:
India must avoid ceding the centre stage in its own region on foreign policy and on Tibet issues. Discuss in the context of the recent visit of a delegation of U.S. lawmakers to Dharamshala. (10 Marks, 150 Words).
New Delhi’s Stand:
- Under these circumstances, New Delhi was undoubtedly aware of the speeches they would deliver, condemning China for its repression of the Tibetan people, advocating for the resumption of talks between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and Beijing that were halted in 2010, and calling for a Free Tibet.
- Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, “This bill sends a message to the Chinese government that we are clear in our stance on this issue, for the freedom of Tibet.
- [The Dalai Lama’s] legacy will endure forever, but you, the President of China, will eventually be forgotten and credited for nothing.”
Weakness, not Strength:
- While the sharp tone of these comments and the presence of U.S. officials and lawmakers in Dharamshala are not unprecedented, this marks the first public rally of its kind held in India in recent years.
- India’s External Affairs Minister hosted the delegation for a late dinner on the same evening as the rally, and the Prime Minister met with them the following day, suggesting that New Delhi’s decision was carefully considered.
- Some view this as a significant message from New Delhi to Beijing amid ongoing tensions, especially concerning efforts to resolve the military standoff along the Line of Actual Control since the deadly 2020 Galwan clash.
- However, New Delhi’s choice to allow American politicians to prominently address the Tibetan refugee community in India to promote a U.S. law and advocate U.S. policy does not demonstrate strength; rather, it could be perceived as a sign of weakness.
- It also poses the risk of losing control over a meticulously crafted foreign policy narrative concerning Tibet.
- India has refrained from publicly expressing concerns about the treatment of Tibetans, contrasting with its actions since 1959—providing refuge to the Dalai Lama and allowing Tibetan refugees to settle in India, actions that speak volumes.
- Even today, Tibetans continue to cross the Himalayas seeking sanctuary in India. Often, parents send only their children, fearing the future implications of Tibet’s educational curriculum being aligned more closely with mainland China’s system, enforced rigorously by the Chinese Communist Party.
- Given India’s own sensitivities regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity, New Delhi has developed its own approach to the Tibet issue and its relations with China.
- Since 1954, India has “recognized” the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) as part of the People’s Republic of China.
- Since 2010, India has refrained from articulating a ‘One China’ policy or discussing Tibet in official statements due to China’s actions, including its disregard for India’s territorial integrity by renaming places in Arunachal Pradesh and issuing stapled visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir.
- Despite China’s accusations labeling the Dalai Lama as a “separatist” or “splittist,” India maintains that he is a revered spiritual leader.
- Additionally, India does not officially recognize the Tibetan Government in Exile or the Parliament in Exile as more than organizational bodies for the Tibetan community, both within India and abroad.
- Although the Indian Prime Minister invited the Tibetan Sikyong (elected leader) to his swearing-in ceremony in 2014, he did not extend the same invitation in 2019 or this year.
- In 2018, a government circular reminded officials of India’s policy, advising them not to attend events commemorating the 60th year since the Dalai Lama’s flight to India.
- New Delhi has become more sensitive to such issues, as evidenced by its objections to U.S. Ambassadors visiting Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the platform given to political or extremist Khalistani separatist rallies and referendums in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia.
Moving out of the Picture:
- If the government intends to adopt a more strident position on Tibet similar to that of the U.S., then Indian officials and leaders should have made the statements addressed to Tibetans in Dharamshala, where U.S. lawmakers spoke and were met with waving U.S. flags (with far fewer Indian flags in sight).
- The redundancy of allowing the U.S. delegation to speak is underscored by the fact that the Dalai Lama traveled to the U.S. for medical treatment just days after their visit, meaning the U.S. lawmakers could have met him in Washington, DC instead.
- The main issue with allowing U.S. leaders to direct messages at Beijing from India, and then having Beijing respond directly, is that India is being sidelined in a matter where it has historically been the most significant external player.
- This situation is similar to India’s challenges in other parts of South Asia, including the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and the Indian Ocean islands, where its influence is being eroded by growing U.S.-China rivalries.
Conclusion:
With the U.S. giving the Karmapa a home and accepting more Tibetan refugees, and China tightening its control over Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in the TAR, India must reconsider the future of its own policy, particularly regarding the Dalai Lama’s succession. New Delhi must act decisively to reclaim its voice and control over its policy narrative, avoiding being overshadowed by other nations.
