Home > Opinions > The Dalai Lama question

The Dalai Lama question

By Claude Arpi | Express Buzz

Claude Arpi is a French-born author and journalist. Photographer unknown

As the Dalai Lama arrives for a state visit in Arunachal Pradesh, a question goes around certain circles in Delhi: Is the Dalai Lama a burden for India? Several Indian ‘political thinkers’ are of the opinion that the Dalai Lama (along with more than one lakh of his followers) has become a liability for the nation. Some have suggested that the India should not have allowed the Dalai Lama to visit Tawang. The Tibetan religious leader, they argued, is the last stumbling block for a renewed friendship between India and China and ultimately a China-India dominance of the world.

Nothing can be more wrong. Some Chinese leaders have also thought that the Dalai Lama is a burden for India. Twenty years after the Dalai Lama took refuge in India in 1959, Deng Xiaoping initiated a dialogue with the Tibetan leader. The Tibetans are still grateful for this gesture though some recently released US documents tend to prove that Deng was not a great lover of the Dalai Lama.

In December 1975, the US President Gerald Ford visited China and met Deng Xiaoping, then vice-premier of the state council (Cabinet). Deng brought some ‘small issues’ to Ford’s attention. One was the fact that the Dalai Lama had opened ‘a small office’ in New York. Ford immediately went on the defensive: “Let me assure you, Mr Vice Premier that we oppose and do not support any governmental action as far as Tibet is concerned”.

Though Ford reiterated that the opening of a Tibetan office was a private initiative Deng insisted: “Things might be easier if you refused them visas.” Kissinger intervened and cut short the conversation by a joke: “When they become communists, then we have a legal basis to refuse them visas.” They all had a good laugh since communists were still being harried by the US administration.

A stubborn Deng however continued: “After (the Dalai Lama) went back to Tibet (after a visit to Beijing in 1955), he staged a rebellion and left, fled the country (in March 1959). At that time actually it was possible for us to have stopped his leaving the country. It was entirely within our capacity to stop him from leaving. But Chairman Mao said it is better to let him go.” The Chinese delegates laughed loudly.

As the talk ended, Ford told Deng: “I may just add that we do not approve of the actions that the Indians are taking as far as Tibet is concerned”, the Chinese leader retorted: “We do not pay much attention to that because it is of no use. And to put it in more explicit terms, the Dalai Lama is now a burden on India”. The Chinese again burst out laughing.

Ford joked: “I do not think you want to relieve India of any extra burdens that it has.” Deng replied: “We do not want to. Let them carry it for 100 years! We will think about it after that. The Dalai Lama must be in his thirties, at the most 40. He was very young at that time. He might still live another 60 years, to 100. So let India carry that burden for another 60 years at least.”

At the end, Deng said: “So, no matter what the Dalai Lama can boast about himself, he cannot affect the prospects of Tibet.” Ford retorted: “He should stay in India”. Deng concluded saying: “Yes, and we wish him a long life and a long stay there.” Laughter again.

Indian ‘experts’ are of course foolish to toe the Chinese line and disregard the Tibetan leader; they seem to have no inkling of the past relations between India and China and the way the Chinese have for decades said certain things publicly and acted otherwise. While the past (and present) leadership in China see their relations with India from the point of view of their own interest, many in India see them with the ultimate objective ‘not to hurt China’.

Omkar Goswami, in The Chindia Chimera published in The Business World rightly analysed: “It seems to me that there are two-and-a-half types of people who say that we should always try to accommodate China. The first are the uncompromising peaceniks. …The second bunch of Hindi-Chini bhai bhai fellows are what I call the ‘Chindia chaps’. Typically, these are Indians who have been to Beijing and Shanghai …often as guests of Chinese institutions or international bodies organising conferences in China. …The remaining half is business (people). … the pro-China groups in India are barking up the wrong tree. They don’t, and won’t, understand that China doesn’t give a fig about India.”

One could add a less ‘glorious’ category, people who are just scared of the Chinese noise level. Many in India can’t stand the barking volume of Beijing’s spokespersons; they prefer to give in and get peace. Unfortunately the peace is temporary. Once the bully gets his piece of flesh, he generally wants more.

The fruits of Delhi’s courageous decision to have allowed the Dalai Lama to visit Arunachal, were not long to come. In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal quoted India’s stand to the Obama administration: “India shows the world how to stand firm with China. As Barack Obama prepares for his trip to Beijing next month, he’d be wise to cast an eye toward New Delhi, where Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is showing the rest of the world how to deal with Beijing when it gets into a bullying mood”.

Even if our ‘experts’ believe the only way to calm China down is to give in, it is clear that appeasing Beijing can solve no problem. And where would one stop giving in?

Long ago, historian RC Majumdar clearly assessed the Chinese way of behaving: “There is one aspect of Chinese culture that is little known outside the circle of professional historians. It is the aggressive imperialism that characterised the politics of China throughout the course of her history… Thanks to the systematic recording of historical facts by Chinese themselves …we (historians) are in position to follow the imperial and aggressive policy of China from the third century BC to the present day, a period of more than twenty-two hundred years… It is characteristic of China that if a region once acknowledged her nominal suzerainty even for a short period, she should regard it as a part of her empire for ever and would automatically revive her claim over it even after a thousand years whenever there was a chance of enforcing it.”

At the end of the day India will earn more respect from Beijing than Obama’s administration. Though I still can’t figure out how Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, to stand up to the bully is ultimately the best thing for world peace. India has shown the way by remaining firm on the Dalai Lama’s visit and has clarified that not only is the Tibetan leader not a burden, but he is a Guest of Honour. India is ready to ‘carry the burden’, as Deng said, for many more years.

Copyright © 2009 Express Buzz

Published in Express Buzz