Dalai Lama issue: India cannot be in line with China or can be seen as insensitive to Tibetans, Robert Barnet says India News

Strap: A few days before his 90th birthday on 6 July, the Dalai Lama – the revered spiritual leader of the Tibetan Buddhism – announced that he would have a successor. This announcement is more than a religious decision as China has long sought control over the succession process. Neelam Raj spoke to Robert Bharnet, a prominent Tibet scholar of Soas, London, for insight in this high-day competition between faith and power.
As someone has studied Tibet closely, did you surprise about his succession with the Dalai Lama’s recent announcement, especially given his earlier comment that he could be the final support?
For many years, the Dalai Lama has been reminding the public that he can choose from innumerable options and options in the context of his succession. Sometimes he expressed it lightly, such as saying that he could return as a butterfly, while in other times he mentioned not returning, or he listed the low-knowledge religious options, such as “trulva” or emissions to transmit his consciousness to another adult through a process called emissions. But all these options were reminded that in Tibetan Buddhism it is a personal lama, and the karma of the individual lama that decides how or what the Lama returns. Of course, all these have been a message to China and its rulers that the only right to control rebirth makes very little understanding in the religious context. The Dalai Lama also always said whether he returns, the decision on this would depend on the wishes of his followers, and his authorities spent last year or more to get a written opinion from a comprehensive Buddhist community about that request. This process was partially formal – it reflects a very traditional understanding that a lama only rebirth takes rebirth when his followers request to do so for him or for him. Therefore, no one doubted that the community would ask the Dalai Lama to return, and his decision to rebirth is not surprising. But here the Dalai Lama is sending a message to China again, that is, unlike Beijing, their decisions and their validity is not based on the use of the traditional authority or the use of consent, but on the processes of consent and counseling.
Tell us about the history of this controversial Golden Kalash method of choosing the successor.
Contemporary Chinese officials say an order was given by the then Emperor of China in 1792–3, in which the Tibetans were needed as a final stage in decision making between three children, identified as a high lama candidate reborn to use a golden vase or urn. After reciting appropriate prayers, the victorious name will be drawn from the Kalash. This claim is correct, and, the Golden Kalash system was used several times in Tibet and Mongolia and other areas to select rebirth until the early 1900s. The current Chinese government claims that it is only calling for a long -running legal example, which today only requires Tibetans to use the same system and at the same time to identify that only the Chinese government can only authorize and select rebirth. However, this claim has great weaknesses. First, in 1995, Beijing suddenly mentioned or used the Golden Kalash system for about 100 years before it resumed. Secondly, in the past, the emperor who was involved with rebirth and Golden Kalash was not Chinese and their governments were not Chinese – they were platforms and Buddhist believers, and at that time the Tibetans were considered by Tibetans as Buddha’s emissions in many cases. Third, it is not clear that the use of Kalash was in the past that the government in Beijing was seen as a sign of royal sovereignty by Tibetans; According to historian Max Odtman’s leading work, the process is one of the collaboration between the Tibetans and the stage, instead of a later imposed in the east. And fourth, Manchu’s involvement in rebirth is often understood by Tibetans, rather than a law, instead of a law. And in general, religion and their believers prioritize traditions and beliefs rather than laws. Therefore, the call of Beijing of the 18th-century Manchu-Tibetan religious relations as a proof of Chinese sovereignty describes a world today that seems quite different from contemporary status.
How do you guess that Beijing will respond to this announcement? If China proceeds to take the name of its own successor, are we looking at the possibility of two Dalai Lama?
This is very likely, now the Dalai Lama has announced that the 15th Dalai Lama will be that China will need to claim its sovereignty in these cases by naming its Dalai Lama. So we are looking at a future, after the lifetime of the current Dalai Lama, where there will be two competitors Dalai Lama. But it would not be like a medieval competition between the two rival platforms, as only one of these Dalai Lamas would have been selected according to religious traditions and with the Immimatur of the previous Dalai Lama – which will be chosen by exile. The Chinese candidate must have been selected by the Chinese state, whose rulers are according to the definition of atheists, if not, many times, the lump sum of religion. Therefore, the Chinese candidate is in danger of being limited credibility to the Buddhist community and worldwide. Nevertheless, we want to keep in mind that whatever we are reading is the process of indicating China at some level. Therefore, the declaration of the Dalai Lama is also an indirect reminder that if China is a will, it can still give it a compromise. This agreement is really easy to imagine, in principle: Chinese can return to rebirth only in the 1980s and early 1990s, when they only claimed the right to confirm the options made by the relevant Lamas and did not claim any role in the rebirth process or selection. But some people currently expect concessions to today’s Chinese leaders.
The Dalai Lama has suggested that their rebirth can be found outside China. If that successor comes out of the Tibetan migrant in India, what kind of diplomatic and political challenges can this be for New Delhi?
The Dalai Lama’s succession has become a dispute due to the claim of Beijing in 1995, which had the only authority over that process. Why did he claim, which is clearly one that will give rise to struggle and controversy? One theory is that Chinese foreign policy strategists see an advantage in using this issue to carry forward the objectives of China. According to this theory, the issue of succession gives Chinese diplomats a new opportunity to comply with other governments-it provides China to support those governments and condemn any claims or actions by Tibetan exile. If yes, it is a clever step, as most governments have some exile and some Buddhists in their population. Such governments may feel less expensive to follow China’s request, which will seem to be a minor or unclear issue for them. But this is definitely not a case for India, for which such requests will be the major implications in the context of the soft power, international diplomacy, religious honor and even border talks. Whatever happens, India will focus the main focus in all countries of China’s strategic interests in this matter, and possibly under significant Chinese pressure. India’s policy maker and diplomat will certainly deploy all their skills and resources to find a way to respond to the pressures that seemed insensitive without compliance with China or insensitive to Tibetan or religious priorities.
How do you explain the recent efforts of China in Tibet-include large-scale infrastructure projects, population revival and campaigns to re-educate Tibetan children?
It was difficult for external analysts to mark Chinese policies in Tibet – they are diverse, sometimes extremely rigid and in other ways and at certain times. But since 2014, a new policy has emerged under Xi Jinping, which is clear:, including minorities, tibetans and others, gradually “integrated” (ziyarong) is to be in large Chinese “community” or nation (Jhunghua Minzu). It has also become clear that Xi Jinping has ordered the process to start from childhood, as his government needs all kindergarten since 2021-and the presence of kindergarten is more or less compulsory for children of 3-5 years or more these days to teach more or more or only in Chinese language. These schools and preschool rapidly teach children about Chinese or Communist history and values, rather than Tibetan people. Therefore, there are serious concerns about the Tibetans, Uyghur, Mongols and the next generation of other people within China will have adequate knowledge of their mother tongue or their culture. At the same time, China is taking many thousands of rural and nomadic Tibetans in cities or near, or in settlements in distant border areas, sometimes due to very vague reasons, and also the possibility of dramatic effects on cultural traditions and identity. In the context of work, medical access and knowledge of Chinese, some of these will have practical benefits for people transferred, but there is a lot of uncertainty about the overall impact of the ongoing process of social and cultural engineering.