OPINION
While it seems to make no difference to China whether Tibetans are seeking autonomy or campaigning for independence for their occupied homeland, Tseten Lhundup* contends that the former sustains the cause internationally and offers possibilities for the future while advocates for the latter have rarely provided an actionable roadmap for attaining what he sees as an impossible goal.
For a long time, there have been two divergent lines within the Tibetan exile community. One is the “Middle Way Approach” represented by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, which advocates for genuine autonomy within the framework of China. The other is the “radical independence” line upheld by some individuals, demanding complete separation from China and the restoration of former sovereignty. On May 26, radical elements concluded a four-day, 8th International Rangzen Conference in Australia. As a Tibetan in exile who cares deeply about Tibet’s future, I must express my views on why I oppose the independence route. It is not because I lack love for Tibetan culture, religion, and identity. On the contrary, it is precisely because of this profound love that I choose a more pragmatic, responsible path—one that is more likely to protect the future of the Tibetan people.
Rangzen advocates call for Tibetan unity and urge people to abandon unnecessary debates over different approaches. Everyone knows that Tibetans need unity, so why can’t they unify their thinking around the Middle Way Approach proposed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama? It should be noted that the Middle Way is the official policy of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) and is endorsed by the vast majority of Tibetans in exile. Independence advocates continue to instill “Tibetan independence” ideas among young Tibetans, leading more and more young people to lose trust in the CTA and faith in the Dalai Lama. So who is really undermining Tibetan unity? Isn’t it those who promote the independence policy?
Rangzen supporters claim that the Middle Way has already failed in the face of China’s hardline policies and demand that the CTA restore a Tibetan independence policy in light of current international geopolitics. I would say that without the Middle Way policy, would Tibetan exiles even have the relatively stable living space we enjoy today? It is precisely after considering the current geopolitical background that the Middle Way becomes our best choice. Why has His Holiness the Dalai Lama never advocated the independence route? Because no country in the world dares to support Tibetan independence when facing pressure from China—not even the United States. This is a road with no future in sight.
Implementing the independence route would inevitably trigger large-scale resistance, causing heavy losses of Tibetan lives, damaging the international image of Tibetans, and leading to even greater suppression by the Chinese government. Tibetan exiles would face a far more severe living environment. Once Tibetan organisations are labelled as terrorist groups, we would find it nearly impossible to operate anywhere in the world.
In contrast, the Middle Way Approach encompasses Tibet’s unique culture, religious beliefs, and way of life, rather than an abstract label of “sovereignty.” Radical independence often sanctifies the idea of “independence” but rarely provides an actionable roadmap. In today’s globalised era, how would an isolated “Tibetan state” cope with economic, climate, technological, and security challenges? How would it prevent external infiltration or internal factional splits? The Middle Way clearly proposes high-level autonomy within the framework of China, preserving Tibetan-language education, religious freedom, resource allocation rights, and cultural autonomy. This approach is far more likely to win sympathy and support from the international community because it is not a zero-sum game but a search for win-win outcomes.
Over the past few decades, the Middle Way has successfully kept the Tibet issue alive in international forums as an issue of “human rights and autonomy” rather than a purely territorial dispute. This has left more possibilities for the future. Isn’t this the success of the Middle Way?
The greatest harm of the radical independence route is that it creates division within Tibetan exile society. It makes the younger generation look down on the Middle Way as weakness, makes the older generation feel betrayed, and leads supporters to attack one another. This is exactly the outcome China most wants to see— Tibetans consuming themselves internally and becoming unable to form a unified voice. True courage is not shouting impossible slogans, but facing harsh reality and still working to secure the greatest well-being for the next generation.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has already set an example: he gave up the demand for independence and instead promoted the Middle Way. This is not compromise, but a higher level of responsibility and commitment. We should inherit this wisdom rather than waste precious international attention and internal cohesion in emotional outbursts.
—
* Tseten Lhundup currently lives in New York. He has extensive experience of working in the Tibetan communities of New York and New Jersey and has served as a Community Coordinator, assisting newly arrived Tibetan exiles in adapting to life in the United States by providing language support and practical daily living assistance.