By Tenzin Nyidon
DHARAMSHALA, Aug 14: Dilip Sinha, a veteran Indian diplomat held a talk at the Tibet Policy Institute (TPI), a think tank under the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) on Wednesday, where he discussed his latest book, “Imperial Games in Tibet: The Struggle for Statehood and Sovereignty.”
During the session, Sinha, who previously served as India’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, shared the motivations to write the book. He remarked that throughout his career, he observed a significant gap in the literature on India-China relations, particularly due to an excessive focus on border issues. “I wanted to write a book that would help my fellow countrymen become more familiar with this subject,” Sinha explained. “Even among my colleagues involved in international affairs, there is very little understanding of Tibet.”
He further elaborated that the book is centered around two key questions. “The primary focus is on why China’s claim over Tibet has been so easily accepted by the world. Why has no country challenged that claim?” he asked. “The second question, which is particularly relevant, is why Tibet has not been able to assert its claim to statehood in a way that would make it a significant issue on the international agenda.” Sinha pointed out that Tibet rarely features in the international discussions, except when human rights issues are addressed. “Tibet only comes up in the Human Rights Council when human rights issues are discussed, and countries express their views on the violations happening inside Tibet. However, this does not address the broader international aspects of Tibet’s situation,” he remarked.
During the Q&A session, Dr. Tenzin Lhadon, a research fellow at the TPI, inquired about the gap in India’s approach to the India-China conflict and how this has led to a lack of political will on the Tibet issue. She also questioned how long India can maintain this status quo, given China’s increasing aggression not only at the border but on multiple fronts. In response, Sinha remarked, “Well, to be frank, I don’t foresee any change in India’s official policy in the near future unless there is a significant geopolitical shift. Once a policy is established, particularly among bureaucrats and diplomats, there’s a tendency to stick to that policy and keep harping on the same language because that’s the easiest thing to do.” He added that within the strategic community, there is a growing sense that something went wrong and needs an approach to change but no one seems to be actively pursuing it.
Sinha further noted, “When a change will take place, we don’t know. Theoretically, it’s challenging to determine what India can do because China is now a superpower, and India faces its own internal problems. India’s economic development has been slow, leading its leaders to prioritise a peaceful periphery. All these factors make it difficult for India to consider altering its policy at this moment, but the thinking is there.”
Dorjee Tseten, a member of the 17th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile (TPiE), emphasised the importance of India adopting a more assertive stance on the Tibet issue. He acknowledged that every country prioritises its own interests, but he pointed out that India’s interests are also at stake in this matter. Tseten also referenced the recent Universal Periodic Review (UPR) where over 20 countries spoke out about Tibet, including Japan, which mentioned Tibet for the first time despite facing pressure from China. He noted that India has remained silent on the issue, and inquired about the potential opportunities for Tibet to engage with India at that level, given India’s current position on Tibet.
In response, Sinha shared his perspective on what India should do, stating, “I believe we should certainly begin talking about human rights issues, particularly in the Human Rights Council. During China’s UPR, 24 countries explicitly mentioned Tibet, and we did not. We should have.” He elaborated on the broader debate around human rights, noting that some countries view it as an internal matter, while others, particularly in the West, consider it an international issue. “As a member of the Human Rights Council, which aims to promote and protect human rights, India should at least comment on or criticise violations occurring in other countries without being accused of interfering in internal affairs,’ he explained. Despite the grey area surrounding when to comment, Sinha emphasised the importance of beginning these discussions, as they are an integral part of India’s foreign policy.
One Response
It’s been our own fault! The biggest mistake was signing of the so called “17 Point Treaty” with communist China. The communists made good use of it till the 1970s with the photo of Mao and Ngapo Ngawang Jigme on a booklet which they often displayed for their propaganda purposes. Yes, we were forced and had no choice since the Chinese forces had already taken Chamdo, they dictated Lhasa Tibetan Government for negotiations at gun point but it did the greatest damage! We often blame India for endorsing the Chinese claim over Tibet in the 1954 Panch Sheel Agreement but in reality, the real damage was done on 23rd of May 1953 when Tibet was FORCED TO SIGN THE SO CALLED 17 POINT TREATY ON THE DOTTED LINE! For the Chinese communists, it was only for the consumption of the International community, especially India who had the greatest stake since it concerns its national security. However, Pandit Nehru was so wrapped up with his vision of “Asian solidarity”, he never suspected any malevolent intention by the Chinese occupation of Tibet! He was convinced that the Chinese will never invade India and said so in as many words! Nehru deflected western criticism of Chinese occupation of Tibet and even told them to say nothing and do nothing about Tibet. He didn’t want any friction between India and China concerning Tibet to spoil the cordial friendship. The Panch sheel was another deception to lull India into a sense of security hallucination! They had no intention of keeping their pledge of non-aggression, non- interference and respect for sovereignity. It was only for their interest to keep the Tibet issue as an “internal issue” without interference from India concerning “Chinese sovereignty” over Tibet.
In exile, around 1990, an internal memo was distributed among the officials of the Tibetan exiles which decreed that hence forth, no one was allowed to talk about Tibetan independence. It was announced by the respective leaders in the Tibetan camps, monasteries and secular institutions. Soon after this announcement, The Dalai Lama’s elder brother, Thubtan Jigme Norbu (Taktser Rinpoche) circulated another letter which said that “without independence, Tibet will not survive”. This was a clear demonstration that Thubtan Jigme Norbu was at odds with his brother, the Dalai Lama! While no one could criticise either of them, Thubtan Jigme Norbu’s letter was hushed up and nobody spoke about it. In the community, nobody spoke much about both and life went on as usual. Those Tibetans who had the courage to contest the official policy of autonomy were labelled as criticising the Dalai Lama. Among the exiles there are not many who despite attending English medium schools, who are proficient in English. They can’t differentiate between contesting an idea and criticising an idea or ideology. If it doesn’t go according to the official line , they see it as criticism! Owing to this environment, asserting Tibet’s independence among the exiles was all but snuffed out. With change of leadership in the early 2000, it got even worse with open hostility towards independence minded Tibetans. THE OCCUPATION OF TIBET WAS ACCEPTED AS FAIT ACCOMPLI NOT ONLY BY INDIA AND OTHER WESTERN NATIONS BUT EVEN THE EXILE GOVERNMENT ITSELF AND MADE IT A POLICY THAT CANNOT BE CHALLENGED EVEN BY THE TIBETAN THEMSELVES BY MUZZLING INDEPENDENCE ADVOCATES! India used Tibet as a bargaining chip for its own self-interest. They didn’t see communist Chinese designs on Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh but went headlong into the Chinese trap of Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai bromance! India supported communist China and Pakistan consistently in the UN keeping their interest of being a good friend of China! In 2003, Atal Bihari Vajpayee bartered Tibet with Sikkim. Until then, the Chinese maintained that Sikkim was an independent country and did not acknowledge India’s sovereignty over it. Vajpayee changed all that by endorsing “Tibet Autonomous region as part of PRC” in return for Indian sovereignty over Sikkim. The Chinese even gave a map of Sikkim depicting it as part of India for India’s endorsement of Tibet as part of PRC. Since India never protested about the illegal occupation of Tibet by communist China, other nations such as the US had little leeway to express interest in the occupation of Tibet. It had neither geographical connection nor security concerns to legitimately voice its concerns apart from an anti- communist rhetoric. INDIA BY SHARING A BORDER WITH TIBET HAD THE HIGHEST STAKE BUT SINCE INDIA RAISED NO SUCH CONCERNS, ALL OTHERS REMAINED MUTE. The British who were in the know about Tibet washed their hands off like Pontius Pilate after the crucifixion of Jesus! Thus, Tibet was left in the lurch!