Tenzin Nyidon
DHARAMSHALA, March 7: Senior Indian journalist, Tibetologist, and long-time friend of Tibet Vijay Kranti launched his new book titled “China’s Colonial Games in Tibet” on Friday at the Tibetan Settlement Office Hall in Dharamshala, followed by an interactive Q&A session with the media representatives and the audience.
The book features 60 essays based on presentations by leading experts delivered during nearly 30 international webinars on Tibet–China issues held between 2020 and 2023, organized by Kranti in collaboration with the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC). Kranti said that around 15 webinars were ultimately selected for inclusion in the volume, focusing on key issues that experts and concerned organisations have repeatedly raised at international forums. These discussions, he noted, highlight some of the most severe and inhumane aspects of China’s colonial policies in Tibet. He added that the initiative sought to present, in a single volume, a comprehensive account of the major colonial challenges and issues faced by the Tibetan people under China’s rule.
During the Q&A session, Phayul asked Kranti about recent remarks by the Central Tibetan Administration’s incumbent President, stating that a back-channel dialogue with Beijing is currently underway. Referring to Kranti’s earlier article titled “Hope and Dangers of New Tibet-China Dialogue—A Friendly Warning,” the question noted China’s past record where dialogue with Dharamshala has often been viewed as a tactic to buy time or ease international pressure, and asked how he assesses the current development. Phayul also asked whether the present moment offers a genuine opportunity for progress, how Tibetans should interpret this renewed engagement, and whether the CTA should consider recalibrating its official stance when engaging with Chinese counterparts.
Responding to the question, Kranti said he continues to maintain the same position he expressed earlier, arguing that China has historically shown little genuine intent in engaging in dialogue with the Tibetan leadership. “China has never shown genuineness. They have shown a desire for dialogue, but there was never any genuineness behind it,” he said, adding that Beijing has often used negotiations to serve its strategic interests.
Kranti cited the period of talks between 2002 and 2008, which he said followed a resolution passed by the European Parliament urging China to negotiate with His Holiness the Dalai Lama within three years or face recommendations that European governments recognize Dharamshala as the government of Tibet. According to Kranti, China initially dismissed the resolution but later initiated dialogue as the deadline approached.
He argued that during the years of negotiations, Beijing used the time to strengthen its control over Tibet, including the expansion of infrastructure such as roads and the Qinghai–Tibet railway, which facilitated the easier movement of Chinese settlers and military forces across the plateau.
On the political front, Kranti said the dialogue also helped China deflect growing international criticism, particularly during the period leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when global protests in support of Tibet had gained unprecedented momentum. “The Chinese used this dialogue to gain credibility which it never deserved,” he said, adding that many Tibet support groups worldwide lost momentum once the international movement surrounding the Olympics subsided.
Regarding reports of second-line or back-channel dialogue, Kranti acknowledged that such informal contacts are common in international politics. However, he expressed skepticism about their potential effectiveness given the past experience of negotiations between Beijing and Dharamshala. “The second-line dialogue has its utility, but it works only if previous experience has been positive,” he said, adding that China currently has little incentive to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Tibetan side.
Kranti further suggested that the Tibetan leadership may need to reconsider the Middle Way Approach, arguing that the offer of genuine autonomy within China has already been rejected by Beijing. In his view, withdrawing this concession would not diminish the moral authority of the Dalai Lama but could instead demonstrate that China failed to respond to the goodwill shown by the Tibetan leadership.
Addressing another question from a fellow journalist on whether the Tibetan leadership’s shift from advocating full independence to the Middle Way Approach has affected activism, Kranti said the decision was originally taken with good intentions. He explained that Tibetan leaders were advised by some international partners that scaling down demands could make it easier for countries to support Tibet diplomatically without appearing to back the breakup of China.
However, Kranti said that in practice, Tibet ended up receiving little tangible benefit, either from China or from those international partners. “At the end, you gave concessions but received nothing in return,” he said, adding that Tibetans must remain vigilant and assess international support through the lens of their own national interests.
Kranti also urged Tibetans to remain alert and strategic in navigating international alliances, emphasizing that genuine friends would continue to stand with Tibet even when its demands are clearly articulated.
Kranti concluded by highlighting the purpose of the book, saying that it was intended to serve as a comprehensive resource for readers seeking to understand the realities in Tibet. “I wanted to present a single window for researchers, Tibet support groups, diplomats, media professionals, opinion makers, and others who want to understand the real situation inside Tibet—how China has behaved as a colonial occupier since it took control of the region. While China makes many claims, this book brings together papers that examine what has actually been happening in Tibet,” he said.
