This is a quick rebut of the article ‘It’s time for India to reclaim its voice on Tibet’ by Suhasini Haidar published in The Hindu on June 27, 2024. For the unenlightened, the article was a polemic on the US delegation that arrived at Dharamsala on Jun 18. Given that it was written after a lapse of some days of the event, the piece sure is a well-meditated one. However, one could not, try as hard as one may, fail to go away with the feeling that the structuring of the arguments and articulation of the narrative is dilettantish. The following scrutiny of selected arguments put forward in the article would prove it so.
The US taking centre stage in India on the issue of Tibet is not a reflection of weakness on India’s part. If at all, it shows the strength of India in allowing the US to do it. And as for the US, coming to Dharamsala is the only path to take. They cannot go to Tibet for obvious reasons and Dharamsala is where the instrumentalities of the exiled Tibetan political system are located. As for the ‘carefully calibrated foreign policy narrative on Tibet’, the author is missing the wood for the tree. It is easy to see that the whole exercise is laid out to spin the narrative out of control while still retaining control.
What is more surprising is that a seemingly seasoned political commentator is choosing to equate humanitarian aid with political aid. Indeed, there is no other country in this world more gracious and grandfatherly to the Tibetan people than India. However, India has been tone-deaf when it comes to countless pleas for political support as is known to all and sundry.
As for the claim by the author that India has formulated its stand on the Tibet issue informed by its sensitivities on sovereignty and territorial integrity, India never had any compulsion to condone the Chinese invasion of Tibet in the first place. On the contrary, it had all the strategic reasons to not allow a Chinese advance on Tibet. It is one of the greatest mysteries of modern geo-politics as to why India looked the other way while its small neighbour was ravaged. Even worse, after recognising Tibet as a part of China subsequently, India unwittingly ceded or at least created grounds for ceding the erstwhile sphere of influence of political Tibet to China. The claims on parts of Arunachal Pradesh and some areas in Ladakh by China are on behalf of Tibet. China never had any border with India throughout history until the Faustian bargain was made.
And the fear that India is being relegated to the backseat in the Tibet issue is unfounded. When you are either not in a condition or inclined to drive the car, having a good driver take over is not such a bad idea. The obtained geo-political stands and standings necessitate such a manoeuvring. As a political commentator, the author should have known this unless she has chosen not to. As for the charge of superfluousness of the event, the delegates have come to interface with the elected leaders of the exile government, meeting His Holiness is a courtesy call in an official capacity and spiritual quest in the personal capacity of the members of the delegates.
Lastly, the argument that India is getting ‘bigfooted’ by the US because the US is being readily accommodative and obliging to Tibetan people is disingenuous at so many levels. The 17th Karmapa was left with no option but to move to the US in the aftermath of the currency notes episode. As for the succession issue, this is an issue that His Holiness and the Tibetan people would tackle when they get to that bridge. The best that the rest of the world can do is cheerlead the process. Moreover, the larger US-China contestation would be at the forefront of global geopolitics for the foreseeable future. There is hardly anything to be gained by being envious of it.
Nyima Tenzing
PhD Scholar
SRM University Sikkim, Gangtok