(TibetanReview.net, Jun12’26) – The Chinese embassy in New Delhi has on Jun 11 criticised the “Middle Way Approach” advocated by the exile Tibetan leadership as it postulates a Tibet that is around twice the size of China’s currently demarcated Tibet Autonomous Region. It has also again warned India on the Dalai Lama reincarnation issue.
Reacting to discussions surrounding Tibet and the Dalai Lama’s future reincarnation, embassy Spokesperson Yu Jing has called the issue of the Dalai Lama’s succession an internal matter to be handled solely by Beijing under Chinese law and “historical practice”.
Regarding the “Middle Way Approach”, which calls for genuine autonomy for Tibet, not independence, Ms Yu has claimed that the proposal was effectively an attempt to advance the cause of Tibetan independence through the creation of a “so-called Greater Tibetan Region”.
Tibetans say the around 2.5 million Sq km historical Tibet is made up of three large provinces of Dotoe (or Kham), Domey (Amdo) and U-Tsang provinces, while China insists this is a claim with no historical foundation.
To China, Tibet means “Tibet Autonomous Region”, made up of the U-Tsang region located in the east and the Chamdo area of of Dotoe in the west. The rest of the ethnically and culturally Tibetan regions of Domey and Dotoe regions have been broken up and made into a separate Qinghai province and parts of Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces of China.
China says it would not permit any action aimed at what it calls dividing the country or weakening national unity under the banner of seeking greater autonomy.
The spokesperson also underlined Beijing’s position on the selection of the Dalai Lama’s successor, stating that the title and status of the Dalai Lama have historically been granted and recognised by China’s central authorities, reported the ndtvprofit.com Jun 11.
This, even if true for the sake of argument, does not hold water as past emperors of China, which included Mongol and Manchu foreign conquerors, were patrons of Buddhism whereas the current rulers in Beijing are not just atheists but also markedly anti-religion, prohibiting its members from being religious believers.
Ms Yu has also, again, demanded that India remain mindful of China’s sensitivity on the matter, “adhere to its commitments, and avoid actions that could adversely affect the broader trajectory of India-China relations”.
India is a constitutionally secular country and does not interfere in citizens’ religious beliefs and practices, so it is not clear what China means by this warning, unless it is to suggest that New Delhi should endorse a future Dalai Lama appointed by it, or, perhaps, refuse to deal with a reincarnation recognized in a territory outside its control. But both would be affront to India’s sovereignty.