HVK Archives: Why are we defensive about Tibet?
Why are we defensive about Tibet? - The Times of India
Prakash Nanda
()
May 1, 1998
Title: Why are we defensive about Tibet?
Author: Prakash Nanda
Publication: The Times of India
Date: May 1, 1998
Despite taking effective control of Tibet nearly 40 years ago,
China is so paranoid about the Dalai Lama and his supporters that
it seeks reassurance from India whenever the dignitaries of the
two countries meet. And on every occasion, India says that it
recognises Tibet as an integral part of China and that the Dalai
Lama and his 200,000 followers in asylum in this country since
1959, will not be allowed to indulge in political activities
against Beijing and its interests.
"I am sorry to say that India's policy, on Tibet is highly
ambiguous. The matter has become more serious with George
Fernandes becoming the defence minister," said a senior Chinese
diplomat to this correspondent on April 27, the day the Chinese
People's Liberation Army chief General Fu Quanyou arrived here
and a senior Tibetan Youth Congress activist committed self-
immolation in protest against the Indian authorities, "forcibly
terminating" the fast unto death of six Tibetans who were
determined to highlight "Chinese misdeeds in Tibet".
Though he did not say so in words, he clearly conveyed the
impression that the Tibetan activists in India have been
emboldened in their anti-China campaign after Mr Fernandes became
the defence minister although most of what he has said are found
in the annual reports of the ministry of defence in recent years.
Unlike other countries, India is affected by what happens in
Tibet. There is no scope for any disagreement over the Chinese
sovereignty in Tibet, something which even the Dalai Lama has
recognised since 1988. But there is enough scope for India to
legitimately concerned about the situation in Tibet having
serious implications on its security, economy and environment.
Let it not be forgotten that had Tibet been under Chinese
"suzerainty" as was the case throughout history, and not under
its sovereignty as has been the case since the fifties, the Sino-
Indian border dispute would have been resolved a long ago. The
Dalai Lama has been on record saying that he recognises the
McMahon line as the border between India and Tibet (China).
Besides, the historical and geographical facts remain that Tibet
was a buffer state. Viewed thus, some of the major Sino-Indian
irritants are because of the Chinese activities in Tibet. New
Delhi has every reason to be concerned about the increasing
militarisation of Tibet, with Beijing actively engaged in
building military infrastructure there such as runways and
missile-delivery sites so as to allow aircraft like SU-27 and
other bombers to take off and engage targets inside Indian
territory. China's improved military capability in Tibet is not
meant for countries like Bangladesh and Nepal and the target
could only be India.
China is yet to assure India that it would reexamine its policy
of nuclearisation of Tibet in general and dumping of radioactive
wastes in particular. The continuing nuclearisation of Tibet has
grave environmental implications for India, because, unless
checked, it may lead to pollution of the Brahmaputra river which
originates in Tibet.
And, India has a vested interest in the early solution of the
Tibetan imbroglio. It would like the Dalai Lama and the 200,000
thousand-odd guests from Tibet to return to their homeland with
due respect.
There are reports that a systematic infiltration from Tibet with
Beijing's blessings is taking place with the sole aim of
undermining the Dalai Lama's authority within the community.
Beijing's intervention in challenging the Dalai Lama's choice of
Rimpoches (prominent sect leaders in Vajrayana Buddhism) is a
case in point. There are also reports that local Indians,
particularly in Himachal Pradesh where the Dalai Lama resides,
are gradually coming to resent the relative affluence of the
Tibetans leading to tension and law and order problems in the
state.
All these are matters that India needs to talk to the Chinese.
About doing so should not be interpreted as questioning Tibet's
status. Interestingly, the Chinese diplomat, quoted above, did
agree that it would be legitimate on India's part to seek
reassurance from China on these in the same way China seeks
reassurance from India on Tibet and the Dalai Lama's role in this
country.
But unfortunately, South Block does not like to share with the
public its approach to the Tibetan issue on the ground that it is
too sensitive a subject.
In fact, South Block has forgotten that throughout the fifties,
the Chinese leaders had encouraged Jawaharlal Nehru to play a
mediatory role between the Dalai Lama and Beijing. That he did
not succeed is a different matter.
The point is that remaining defensive on Tibet does not do India
any good. It is time this policy was reexamined, particularly
since the Vajpayee government is committed to transparency in
governance.
Back
Top
|
