As the world reacts to China's crackdown in Tibet, one country is conspicuous both because of its centrality in the drama and its reticence: India, the land of asylum for the Dalai Lama and the angry young hotheads of the Tibetan Youth Congress, finds itself on the horns of a dilemma.
On the one hand, India is a democracy with a long tradition of allowing peaceful protest, including against foreign countries during state visits by their leaders. It provided refuge to the Dalai Lama when he fled his homeland in 1959, granted asylum and eventually citizenship to more than 110,000 Tibetan refugees and permitted them to create a government-in-exile in the picturesque Himalayan town of Dharamsala.
On the other hand, India has been cultivating better relations with China, which humiliated India in a brief border war in 1962. Though their bitter border dispute remains unresolved and China has been a vital military supplier to Pakistan, bilateral relations have grown warmer in recent years.
Trade has doubled three years in row to an estimated US$40 billion this year; China has overtaken the US as India's largest single trading partner. Tourism, particularly by Indian pilgrims to a major Hindu holy site in Tibet, is thriving. Indian information technology firms have opened offices in Shanghai and Infosys' headquarters in Bangalore recruited nine Chinese employees this year. India has no desire to jeopardize any of this.
India's government has attempted to draw a distinction between its humanitarian obligations as an asylum country and its political responsibilities as a friend of China. The Dalai Lama and his followers are given a respected place but told not to conduct "political activities" on Indian soil.
When young Tibetans staged a march to Lhasa from Indian soil, the Indian police stopped them well before they got to the Tibetan border, detaining 100. When Tibetan demonstrators outside the Chinese embassy in New Delhi attacked the premises, the Indian government stepped up its protection for Chinese diplomats. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee - who was noticeably less forthcoming on Tibet than his US counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference - has publicly warned the Dalai Lama against doing anything that could have a "negative impact on Indo-Sino relations."
The Dalai Lama's curious position has complicated India's diplomatic dance with China. He is simultaneously the most visible spiritual leader of a worldwide community of believers, a role that India honors and a political leader, a role that India permits but rejects in its own dealings with him.
As a Buddhist, the Dalai Lama preaches non-attachment, self-realization, inner actualization and non-violence; as a Tibetan he is admired by a people fiercely attached to their homeland, with most seeking its independence from China and many determined to fight for it. He is the most recognized worldwide symbol of a country that he has not seen for nearly five decades.
The Dalai Lama's message of peace, love and reconciliation has found adherents among Hollywood movie stars, pony-tailed hippies, Irish rock musicians and Indian politicians. But he has made no headway at all with the regime that rules his homeland and he has been unable to prevent Tibet's inexorable transformation into a Chinese province. His sermons fill football stadiums and he has won a Nobel Peace Prize, but most political leaders around the world shirk from meeting him openly, for fear of offending Beijing.
Indians are acutely conscious that, on this subject, the Chinese are easily offended. While India facilitated the highly publicized visit by US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala last month, it almost simultaneously canceled a scheduled meeting between him and Indian Vice President Mohammed Hamid Ansari.
When China summoned India's ambassador in Beijing to the foreign ministry at 2am for a dressing-down over the Tibetan protests in New Delhi, India meekly acquiesced to the insult. Though Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has publicly declared the Dalai Lama to be the "personification of nonviolence," India has let it be known that it does not support his political objectives. The government of India says Tibet is an integral part of China.
That position is not without detractors. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has criticized the Indian government for not "expressing concern over the use of force by the Chinese government" and instead "adopting a policy of appeasement towards China with scant regard to the country's national honor and foreign policy independence."
But few observers believe that the BJP would have conducted itself differently.
The stark truth is that India has no choice in the matter. It cannot undermine its own democratic principles and abridge the freedom of speech of Tibetans on its soil. Nor can it afford to alienate its largest trading partner, a neighbor and an emerging global superpower, which is known to be prickly over any presumed slights to its sovereignty over Tibet. India will continue to balance delicately on its Tibetan tightrope.
Shashi Tharoor, an acclaimed novelist and commentator, is a former under secretary-general of the UN.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS