The burden of being the Dalai Lama

Today, front page headlines in China and India report on the possible impact of Dalai Lama on the relations between the two countries. Can one man really cast such a large shadow on two of the world's largest countries, and oldest civilisations? China is opposed to Dalai Lama visiting the north eastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, accuses him for trying to damage relations between the two countries, and yet affirms that relations will not be affected. Here is a sample from Chinese and India media. What is amazing is the fallout even in Dhaka! Reuters news agency is focusing on the tension between China and India this month, and list this among the five political risks to watch in India.

Hindustan Times: Reshma Patil writing from Beijing reports, "Dalai Lama damaging ties with India: China", on Nov 3, 2009.

While tensions between India and China spill over with visa controversies on both sides, Beijing has now blamed the Dalai Lama for trying to damage ties.
On Tuesday, Beijing labelled the Tibetan spiritual leader’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh a ‘separatist’ anti-China action. “The Dalai Lama often tells lies... he’s a national separatist. This attempt to damage relations between China and the relevant countries will not succeed,’’ said foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu at a media briefing.

Indian Express: "China attacks Dalai Lama for hurting Sino-India ties", 4 Nov 2009

China on Tuesday accused the Dalai Lama of seeking to undermine Beijing's relationship with Delhi through a visit to a disputed border region, insulating India's government from direct Chinese wrath over the dispute. The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader has riled Beijing by arranging a trip week to Arunachal Pradesh, parts of which China claims as its own. The Chinese government has condemned the trip several times and asked Delhi to stop it going ahead.

Daily News & Analysis: Seema Guha reports, "China attacks Dalai Lama but spares India", on 4 Nov 2009.

China's opposition to the Dalai Lama was expected. What was not was the fact that at Tuesday's regular news conference in Beijing, while foreign office spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu lashed out at the Tibetan spiritual leader, he did not include India in his criticism.

CCTV: Provides a video footage of the spokesman of Chinese foreign ministry, with the headline, "Dalai Lama's scheme of damaging Sino-India ties "come to nothing": Spokesman" on Nov 4, 2009.

Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that the Chinese government is deeply concerned by the Dalai Lama's planned visit to a border region between India and China.
Spokesman Ma Zhaoxu repeated an earlier condemnation of the Dalai Lama for separatist activities.
Ma said the scheme to harm China's relations with India would come to nothing.

Xinhua: The Chinese news agency reports, "China voices firm opposition to Dalai Lama's visit to China-India border region" on Nov 3, 2009

China firmly opposes the Dalai Lama's planned visit to a China-India border region, said a Foreign Ministry spokesman here Tuesday.
"China's stance on the eastern section of the China-India border is consistent, and we firmly oppose the Dalai Lama's visit to the region," said Ma Zhaoxu at a regular news briefing.
"This further exposes the Dalai clique's anti-China and separatist nature," said Ma.
Ma said the Dalai Lama keeps lying and being engaged in damaging relations between China and other countries, but his attempt "will not succeed."

Zee News: Earlier the tv channel had quoted the chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh as saying "Dalai Lama will be our state guest", on Oct 28, 2009.

Notwithstanding Chinese objection to the Dalai Lama's proposed visit to Arunachal Pradesh, Chief Minister Dorjee Khandu on Wednesday said the Tibetan spiritual leader will be accorded the honour of 'state guest' during his week-long tour beginning November 7.

Frontline: The cover story of this fortnightly news magazine, dated Nov 7, 2009, is on China. Sushanta Talukdar writes in "China Factor",

The elections in Arunachal Pradesh, which would have otherwise gone unnoticed owing to the small size of its voter population and of the State Assembly, got global attention because of the war of words and the subsequent diplomatic engagement between India and China over the latter’s claim to the border State. The dispute overshadowed the election campaign as well.

The New Nation: Headlines "Police stop photo exhibition on Dalai Lama in Dhaka", on Nov 2, 2009.

Drik Gallery from yesterday focusing on Dalai Lama, which was to have ended on November 7. Police stopped the exhibition as it was being held "without permission of the concerned authority of the government." Police described it as a "sensitive issue."
However, Tanvir Murad Tapu, one of the organisers, said such exhibitions had been being organised for the last 25 years without any interruption. The images portrayed the journey of Tibetans from their homeland to exile, said organisers.
After police locked the gate of the Drik Gallery Prof Muzaffar Ahmed of Transparency International Bangladesh, who was to have inaugurate the function, said such exhibitions could be shown even in China, but the government in their enthusiasm to please a powerful government injured censorship in their own country, a press release said.

Reuters: "Relations with China among Five political risks to watch in India", the news agency notes on 3 Nov 2009. Tensions between India and China are in focus this month at Reuters, with the Dalai Lama visiting the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and another round of talks on a disputed border area set to begin. Under the head of external security, Reuter notes the India's relations with Pakistan and China, and says,

Ties between India and China have soured with the resurgence of a long-festering border dispute over the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Reports of border incursions sparked unease. India also balks at Beijing's support for projects in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and a separate visa policy for Indian Kashmiris, which New Delhi sees as undermining its claim over the region. There is little chance of war between the two countries but further disputes could sour their booming trade relationship.

Key issue to watch:
-- The Dalai Lama's planned trip to Arunachal Pradesh on Nov. 8 has already raised hackles. Beijing strongly opposed the visit, which it says is part of the exiled Tibetan monk's separatist scheming. India has dug in its heels, calling the Dalai Lama an "honoured guest" whose visit has no political motive.
-- The next round of talks over the disputed border with China in mid-November. Years of dialogue on the future of Arunachal Pradesh have made scant progress, but the talks open a window for both sides to diffuse tensions.

China India border: Should we build barriers?

In a commentary in the Economist magazine on 29 Oct 2009, titled, "Himalayan histrionics", the article claims that the real problem between China and India lies in the unresolved border dispute. It points out that China has resolved every other major land dispute with its neighbour, except this one. What has changed in recent years is the situation in Tibet, with the unrest last year, the Chinese seem to feel vulnerable to the porous border.

In truth, the real problem remains the two countries’ long, shared border. Disputes over the western and eastern ends have been unresolved since a bloody war in 1962. In the west, India claims Aksai Chin, a high plateau controlled by China, as part of Kashmir. In the east, China disputes the McMahon Line, agreed by British India and a Tibet then under British rather than Chinese sway. The line is in effect the border today, but China claims a large chunk of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which it calls South Tibet. It includes a revered Buddhist monastery at Tawang, near the 17th-century birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama.

In a “good neighbour” policy, China has now resolved every serious land-border dispute, bar this one. A solution had seemed within reach. In 2005 the two sides laid out the approach. Principles would be agreed, then compromises made, and lastly a line drawn. Only marginal adjustments were expected to the present border. But the prospects of such a deal have crumbled as China has hardened its position. Earlier this year Chinese soldiers crossed the presumed line of control in the west and sent a herder family packing. China has blocked a water project in Arunachal Pradesh financed by the Asian Development Bank. In October it grew shrill over an electioneering trip to the state by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. China has also begun issuing different visas for Indians from Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir.

What has changed the equation is restive Tibet. Anti-Chinese riots last year highlighted the vulnerabilities for China of the vague, porous Tibetan lands. The Communist government, borrowing its impulse from the reviled Manchus of the Qing dynasty, wants once and for all to hammer down the borders of its supersized empire. All the ambiguities of borderlands and the people who wander about them must submit to the central will.

Across the world, even while political boundaries between nations have remained, their character has changed, with increased flow of goods and people. France and Germany, two of the historic enemies in Europe, have not dissolved their border, but opened it to allow greater interaction, ensuring peace and prosperity on both sides. Borders need not be barriers. China and India need to resolve the border question, not by building barriers, but by facilitating people on both side of the boundary to freely interact and pursue their own interest in peace.

The shadow of Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama is expeced to visit Arunachal Pradesh next week. China has not only objected to Dalai Lama's visit, it has also claimed the state as its own. The Chinese and Indian leaders at their summit meeting in Thailand earlier this month, apparently did not raise this issue, and instead agreed to focus on the areas of mutual agreement. Yet, before and after the summit, the Indian government restated its position that the Dalai Lama is a respected guest and spiritual leader, and is free to travel to any part of India, and that he is expected not to engage in politics while in India.

The fact that the Indian and Chinese PMs did not raise the issue of Dalai Lama during their discussions in Bangkok, has been interpreted in two very opposite ways. One view is that Indian side has downplayed its commitment to Dalai Lama by not raising it during the discussions. The other view is that by refusing to make any commitment to China on Dalai Lama, India actually stood up to Chinese pressures both on Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh.

The Wall Street Journal in a recent editorial, "Dalai Lama Lesson", says that India used the issue of Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh to send a signal to China, and compared the 'strong' stand of Manmohan Singh on Dalai Lama, with Barak Obama's refusal to meet the Dalai Lama in Washington recently. In fact the news about Obama declining to meet the Dalai Lama, had come just 24 hours before the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama!

How does the Dalai Lama, who has not been in Tibet for the past fifty years, continue to case his shadow over China, India, the US, and others? How should one look at the question of Tibet? Given the multi-ethnic and multi-identity nature of India, we can hardly support nationalist movement based on any specific identity? On the other hand, given the recognition for the diverse and multiple identities that all Indians have, it is difficult to endorse any attempt to subsume or suppress the different identities. Can one be Tibetan and Chinese, at the same time, as I can be a Bengali and and Indian?

With Arunachal Pradesh and Dalai Lama in the news, it is a good opportunity to discuss these and related issues.

Time for India to play hardball with China

Jude Blanchette, of Atlas Economic Research Foundation, USA, sent the following note:

A new piece appearing in Foreign Policy magazine by Indian journalist Kapil Komireddi argues that India must begin playing "hardball" with China. Komireddi only hints at what this entails (something about the Dalai Lama).

"Indian democracy vexes Beijing. If India can guarantee fundamental rights to its diverse citizens while managing a growth rate not far from China's, why, someone is bound to ask, can China not do the same? For many in the West, China's economic prosperity is a precursor to political freedom for its people. But this theory, as China scholar Minxin Pei has argued, ignores the important fact that an authoritarian state is less likely to loosen its hold on a wealthy country than it would be to forego the control of an impoverished one. This accounts for China's censorship at home and the promotion of secessionism abroad. But it also means that it is China, and not India, that is more fragile and insecure. The Dalai Lama is India's trump card. All India has to do is play hardball."

Read the complete article, "Time for India to play hardball with China" by Kapil Komireddi in Foreign Policy magazine, 2 Oct 2009.

Challeges for China at 60: Change at home

Frank Ching, a Hong Kong-based writer whose book, “Ancestors: 900 Years in the Life of a Chinese Family,” was republished few months ago in paperback, writes in Yale Global on the Challenges for China at 60. Ching says that while cagey about its internal affairs, and always warning foreigners of interfering in China's internal affairs, be it Tibet, human rights or media freedom, China does not hesitate to tell others to restrain their sovereign rights.

China, a significant beneficiary of globalization, is happy to go out into the world, but seems less willing to let the world come in, according to writer Frank Ching. In fact, China, which asserts that it does not interfere with the internal affairs of other countries, appears to do the exact opposite, especially with regard to issues surrounding alleged separatism in China. Notably vocal whenever a foreign leader meets with the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama or a country grants him a visa, Beijing claims that such actions “grossly interfere” with China’s internal affairs and “hurt the feelings” of the Chinese people. For a country that prides itself on having signed more human rights treaties than the US – certainly a mature approach to international affairs – such a reaction seems oddly truculent. Indeed, as Ching argues, globalization is a two-way street where the benefits hopefully compensate, even outweigh, the loss of sovereignty. Rightly or wrongly, China seems yet to agree with such logic. – YaleGlobal

Read the complete article here.