Trouble in Tibet

The Chinese authorities have responded with characteristic harshness on protesting Buddhist monks in Lhasa in the past few days: at last count between 30 and 100 have been killed. The protests were to mark the anniversary of the failed rebellion against the Chinese in 1959, coinciding with protests worldwide by Tibetans in exile, including in India. It is a well-known fact that the Chinese authorities have used strong-arm tactics to deal with dissidence not only in Tibet but also in other parts of China.

 It is not surprising that in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics this August, the Tibetan protests provide a good reason for western critics of communist China to raise their voices. It is a moot question whether western democrats and Hollywood celebrities who support the Tibetan cause have any genuine understanding or sympathy for the Tibetans except as a pretext to embarrass China’s communists.

However, this does not mean that the Chinese have not been guilty of trampling on the religious and cultural traditions of the Tibetans. It is only of late that reformist communists in China seem to be rediscovering the uses of religion to deal with social discontents. The atheistic Chinese communists have cynically used the Buddhist monasteries in Tibet as tourist attractions. Beijing is also making an attempt to open up Tibet to the rest of the world through the trans-Chinese train from Beijing to Lhasa.

The clarity on the matter comes from the spiritual leader of the Tibetans, the Dalai Lama. He knows full well that an independent Tibet is now an unrealistic goal. Tibet has long been within the political sphere of influence of the rulers in Beijing. 

 That is why the Dalai Lama is for the preservation of the cultural and religious traditions of Tibet. Unfortunately the Chinese are deeply suspicious of the religious leader or they would quickly seize his offer of compromise. What the Tibetans want is some measure of autonomy and an assurance that their cultural and religious traditions are not subsumed by China. In fact, it is more than likely that such a Tibet, as envisaged by the Dalai Lama, would strengthen China, not weaken it.

 The Indian government has been predictably timid in its response to the latest eruption of trouble in Lhasa — asking for ‘dialogue’. Nehru did acknowledge China’s historical suzerainty over Tibet. But that was not an endorsement of the destruction of Tibetan identity. New Delhi should exert its good offices to convey the Dalai Lama’s true position to the Chinese leaders instead of staying strictly neutral, which is a cowardly position.