The Dalai Lama, Taiwan and China

By S.P.SETH

The Dalai Lama’s recent Taiwan visit was comforting for its typhoon ravaged people. But it infuriated China. An official spokesman commented that, “Under the pretext of religion, he has all along been engaged in separatist activities.”

Elaborating, he said, “Obviously, this is not for the sake of disaster relief. It’s an attempt to sabotage the hard-earned good situation in cross-strait relations.”

Considering that President Ma Ying–jeou has been bending over backward to please China, he obviously made some hard political calculations when allowing the Dalai Lama’s visit.

He was losing political ground to the opposition Democratic Progressive Party from the torrent of criticism in the country over his administration’s slow and tardy response to the devastating tragedy of Typhoon Morakot.

And knowing how close the Ma administration is to China, they must have explained to Beijing their need to contain political damage that might worsen if the Dalai Lama was refused to visit Taiwan in his role of imparting spiritual solace.

Beijing might not have found it satisfactory but the thought of another possible DPP comeback at some point must be sobering.

The Typhoon Morakot has killed up to 800 people, destroyed property and dislocated communities.

In the midst of all this destruction, the government seemed still unsure how best to respond as if the gravity of the situation had not sunk in.

On such occasions when Nature’s wrath strikes, and the government is woefully incompetent and inadequate, people’s minds turn to spiritual nourishment.

The local leaders (mayors and local government chiefs) were more responsive to their people’s need for some sort of spiritual comfort at a time of tremendous grief.

Which led them to invite the Dalai Lama to serve that need.

Whether or not they were politically motivated is not the issue here. The issue is that they spotted the dire need for spiritual solace and decided that the Dalai Lama was the one to fit that role.

And he played that role with great aplomb and sincerity, judging from the people’s enthusiasm at his meetings.

Indeed China too, in its present state of obsessive greed and consequent moral/spiritual void, can use the Dalai Lama for the good of its people to perform such a role.

China’s ruling oligarchy has so demonized him that they refuse to see any role for him. For them he is a separatist, a political monk and a traitor, at worst.

And what has he done to deserve these epithets? Simply because he seeks autonomy for Tibet as part of China.

Which translates into an autonomous Tibet being able to deal with its regional affairs, while the central government in Beijing controls its defense, foreign dealings and currency.

With such sovereign control over Tibet, is it possible to imagine that it would pose a threat to China’s territorial integrity?

In a country of 1.3 billion people, an autonomous Tibet’s population of about 6 million will be a tiny minority.

And if Beijing can be paranoid on this score, then there is something seriously wrong about the polity and psychology of such a state.

Indeed, judging by the Dalai Lama’s public pronouncements he comes out as a very pragmatic and practical man. For instance, he is always hosing down the hotheads in the Tibetan Youth Congress who advocate independence for Tibet.

The Dalai Lama has reportedly said, “But I always ask them: How are you going to attain independence? Where are you going to get the weapons? How are you going to pay for them? How are you going to send them into Tibet? They have no answer.”

This is certainly not a guy who has some delusion of grandeur about Tibet’s capacity to become independent through an armed struggle with the hugely powerful China.

He acknowledges China’s great power role. They already have the “manpower, military power [and] monetary power.” But, he says, “Moral power, moral authority is lacking.”

In other words, China would need some moral and spiritual foundation to underpin its heedless and relentless pursuit of greed.

Because, in its absence, it will lose its social and cultural cohesion and bring on itself the social chaos that its leadership professes to fear so much.

And for this, China can certainly use the Dalai’s Lama’s moral authority.

According to Pico Iyer, who has studied the Dalai Lama over the decades, “…the Dalai Lama has always been adept at pointing out, logically, how Tibet’s interests and China’s converge—bringing geopolitics and Buddhist principles together…”

China, therefore, should tap his spiritual and moral authority and make him a partner in its moral regeneration.

Which would require them to stop demonizing him as some sort of an evil phenomena.

An autonomous Tibet might give some substance to China’s otherwise phony claim of ethnic and cultural diversity.

They should stop waiting for the Dalai Lama to die and replace him with their own compliant nominee.

Indeed, in his death, he might become a more potent symbol of retrieving Tibet’s identity, with not inconsiderable public support internationally.

At 73, the Dalai Lama is still going strong, and is likely to be around for many years.

If Beijing can get over its pathological hatred of him, he might be able to play a useful role in broadening and humanizing China’s image.

And with his considerable spiritual following in Taiwan, he might even be able to play a useful bridging role with the mainland.

The point is that China’s paranoid leadership needs to relax and let Taiwan breathe freely.

Even with a broadly shared culture, people can still decide to live as separate nations. Take the case of Australia and New Zealand. They have the best of relations as separate countries with a shared cultural heritage.

Why can’t China feel more confident with an independent Taiwan, with both countries deepening their shared cultural, trade and other activities?

Granting autonomy to Tibet might be the first step to make China feel more at ease.

Troubled China-India relations

By S.P.SETH

Recent press reports suggest that tensions between China and India are once again on the rise on their disputed border. China claims a vast swathe of India’s northeastern state of Arunchal Pradesh as its territory.

The ongoing border talks between the two countries haven’t done much to resolve the dispute. They simply froze the border dispute to unfreeze other aspects of the relationship.

But it does crop up now and then with renewed tensions to remind the world that all is not quiet on India-China border.

Apparently, things have heated up to a point where Professor Brahma Chellaney, of the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, has said, “Things are getting really intense and from the Indian perspective outrageous.”

The border issue is part of a much more complex relationship.

Beijing has never taken kindly to the presence of the Dalai Lama and his entourage in India, even though New Delhi regards Tibet as part of China.

At the same time, it infuriates Beijing when India is paraded so often in international talkfest as its Asian rival.

They tend to be dismissive of these claims, considering that China is stronger than its presumed Asian rival.

But Beijing can’t stop the world from projecting India as a competing Asian power.

This has been China’s problem ever since its “liberation” in 1949. India keeps popping up in some way or the other.

New Delhi’s initial role (in the early fifties) to sponsor communist China into international community was grudgingly accepted, but its credentials doubted.

Its role in facilitating autonomy for Tibet in the fifties was regarded as doing the US bidding. And India increasingly came to be seen as an American proxy.

China is unforgiving that India somehow continues to exist as a single national entity. And by virtue of its size and potential is regarded as China’s Asian rival.

Indeed, the successful creation of Bangladesh in early seventies with Indian help, sent Beijing into a rage; with Premier Zhou Enlai questioning (in an interview with a British journalist) the very basis of India’s nationhood, calling it a British creation.

New China News Agency (NCNA) then warned India on December 17, 1971, that others might do to India what it had done to Pakistan.

In other words, India too could be dismembered, apparently with Chinese help.

It was, therefore, not entirely surprising when it was reported recently that a think tank linked to the Chinese military called for India to be split into 30 independent states.

It further said that if China “takes a little action, the so-called great Indian federation can be broken up.”

This (the breaking up of India), in its view, would be in China’s interest, and foster regional prosperity.

And it could be accomplished though the agency of China-friendly countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal helping “different nationalities” (in India) establishing their own independent states.

Beijing is obviously rattled by India’s move to strengthen its military presence along their joint border after reports of Chinese military intrusions, describing it as “unwise military moves.”

New Delhi, on the other hand, has reiterated their joint commitment (with China) to “resolve outstanding issues, including the boundary question, through peaceful dialogue and consultations, and with mutual sensitivity to each other’s concerns.”

How serious is the border situation?

It is serious enough and one cannot rule out border incidents involving some military clashes. China periodically tests Indian resolve and defenses, with increased military activity.

New Delhi is equally determined to hold on to its border posts and territory to deny China any territorial advantage.

These border military clashes, if they were to occur, might develop their own momentum to create a bigger crisis.

But, by and large, it is likely to be a controlled affair.

However, as pointed out earlier, the border dispute is part of a larger problem for China. Which is that India, with its size and potential, denies China the right to become the acknowledged Asian supremo.

Japan is easily dismissed these days because of its chronic economic and political malaise.

Besides, whenever it tries to raise its head, China whacks it down with the stick of its historical guilt. Which Japan has a knack of re-visiting on itself through its insensitivity and incompetence.

On the other hand, despite all its problems, India tends to loom large. Which is terribly annoying for China.

And as long as this is the case, China finds it difficult to fit India into its scheme of things.

The only way out of this predicament is to somehow slice it into different national entities. They will be more manageable like Pakistan, Bangladesh and other smaller neighbors of India.

The problem, though, is that it is easier said than done.

True, India is plagued with some insurgent and rebel movements in its far-flung regions, including Maoist rebels (of Indian variety). But they have been around, in some form or the other, for a long time.

But it does stretch the Indian state and constitutes a serious problem. However, India has managed it so far.

Its democratic political system gives it the necessary flexibility and responsiveness to try autonomy deals of varying success, unlike China dealing with Tibet, and Xinjiang.

But If China could accentuate these contradictions in India, it would pin down New Delhi in its neighborhood and within the country.

China, for instance, could funnel economic and military aid to these rebel movements through countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and any other country inclined to play China’s game.

China has done this in the past.

But the Maoist policy of creating ‘revolutionary’ disorder was discontinued under Deng Xiaoping to concentrate on China’s modernization.

Therefore, any reversal of this policy to put India in place will require serious deliberations at the highest level.

Because, such adventures can create all kinds of unpredictable complications at a time when China is still in the process of consolidating and expanding its power.

Besides, looking at Pakistan’s parlous state, it doesn’t seem like an effective Chinese proxy against India.

Bangladesh too has its own problems.

At the same time, India might not be an easy pushover.

Which brings us to the threat of creating 30 independent states out of India.

Obviously, it is a warning of sorts to India that China can create serious trouble if New Delhi sought to be ‘unreasonable’.

In the immediate period, this clash might lead to some local clashes.

In the long term, China might continue to question India’s nationhood, and hope for its fragmentation into multiple nation states.

In other words, there is no hopeful scenario for stable China-India relations.