India its own worst enemy on Tibet

By Mayank Chhaya

India is its own worst enemy when it comes to the question of Tibet and how it has handled the presence of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan refugees on its soil for nearly 50 years.

No country in the world has done as much for the Dalai Lama personally and the Tibetans-in-exile in general as India since 1959. Yet every time the issue of Tibet captures world attention, India goes into a tailspin and ends up projecting an image of pusillanimity. For a country where the Tibetan government-in-exile has been in existence for decades and where the Dalai Lama has fundamentally democratized his own institution, it seems strangely dichotomous that New Delhi sounds so apologetic about its implicit support for Tibet. In the process it is has exposed itself to unfair criticism despite the fact that it has played a defining role, if not by design then at least by default, in Tibet's destiny.

In some sense the relationship between India and the Dalai Lama is beginning to seem like that between an increasingly restive host with an overstaying guest. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's less than subtle word of advice to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exiles not to do anything that could have a "negative impact on Indo-Sino relations" is an consequence of a long but jaded guest-host relationship. Whether or not New Delhi characterizes its so, the presence of the Dalai Lama and his government-in-exile is inherently political. Although the asylum was granted to him on the expressly spiritual and humanitarian ground, by the very nature of the institution of the Dalai Lama he is as much a political figure as he is spiritual. India knew clearly in 1959 that when the Dalai Lama was coming into exile he was doing so with all his cultural, historical and political inheritance. It is a bit late in the day to be chagrined by or worried about the politics of the Dalai Lama.

On his part the Dalai Lama has unfailingly expressed his continuing gratitude for the role India has played in his life. He has done an exceptional job of putting across his point of view about Tibet without gratuitously implicating India or abusing its hospitality. It is true that the young Tibetans, who were born in India, have been increasingly assertive in their demand for an independent Tibet and have often backed up their rhetoric with action. To that extent India would be justified in being anxious to ensure that the diplomatic boundaries are not breached by a few zealots within the exile community.
No one can deny that an economically resurgent India has to do everything to ensure that the growth trajectory continues for the next 50 years if it has to transform the lives of one billion plus people. Substantial economic, diplomatic and political engagement with China is a decisive part of that strategy. India need not make any apology for overhauling its relations with China to an unprecedented level. However, there are certain moral absolutes incumbent upon a civilization of India's strength and vintage. One of them is the ability to stand for certain principles such as fundamental human freedom. The question of Tibet is about fundamental human freedom and India cannot disregard it without negating all that it is great about the country.

It is in this context that one must view some of the recent developments. In the very least it is unseemly that that India's Ambassador to Beijing Nirupama Rao was summoned by the Chinese foreign ministry at 2 a.m. in the aftermath of an intrusion into the Chinese embassy in New Delhi by some Tibetan protesters. That Beijing thought it appropriate to summon an ambassador of a friendly country, not to mention a global power, at that hour over a minor incident smacks of diplomatic arrogance. Mukherjee's gentle but specific word of caution for the Dalai Lama is one with India's willingness to placate the Chinese at this juncture of bilateral history. It is a difficult and complicated relationship given the two countries' 2100 miles of shared border dotted with disputed territories and increasingly coinciding economies fueled by $40 billion in trade. There are no clear cut or pet answers to Sino-Indian dilemmas.

Having said that though it is equally obvious that with an economy inextricably linked with the rest of the world China cannot afford antagonize everyone, particularly its immediate giant Asian neighbor in India. India will discover that an occasional cracking of the whip or an expression of displeasure will go a long way in keeping the relationship on an even keel.