As the world reacts to China's crackdown in Tibet, one country is conspicuous both because of its centrality in the drama and its reticence: India, the land of asylum for the Dalai Lama and the angry young hotheads of the Tibetan Youth Congress, finds itself on the horns of a dilemma.
On the one hand, India is a democracy with a long tradition of allowing peaceful protest, including against foreign countries during state visits by their leaders. It provided refuge to the Dalai Lama when he fled his homeland in 1959, granted asylum and eventually citizenship to more than 110,000 Tibetan refugees and permitted them to create a government-in-exile in the picturesque Himalayan town of Dharamsala.
On the other hand, India has been cultivating better relations with China, which humiliated India in a brief border war in 1962. Though their bitter border dispute remains unresolved and China has been a vital military supplier to Pakistan, bilateral relations have grown warmer in recent years.
Trade has doubled three years in row to an estimated US$40 billion this year; China has overtaken the US as India's largest single trading partner. Tourism, particularly by Indian pilgrims to a major Hindu holy site in Tibet, is thriving. Indian information technology firms have opened offices in Shanghai and Infosys' headquarters in Bangalore recruited nine Chinese employees this year. India has no desire to jeopardize any of this.
India's government has attempted to draw a distinction between its humanitarian obligations as an asylum country and its political responsibilities as a friend of China. The Dalai Lama and his followers are given a respected place but told not to conduct "political activities" on Indian soil.
When young Tibetans staged a march to Lhasa from Indian soil, the Indian police stopped them well before they got to the Tibetan border, detaining 100. When Tibetan demonstrators outside the Chinese embassy in New Delhi attacked the premises, the Indian government stepped up its protection for Chinese diplomats. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee - who was noticeably less forthcoming on Tibet than his US counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference - has publicly warned the Dalai Lama against doing anything that could have a "negative impact on Indo-Sino relations."
The Dalai Lama's curious position has complicated India's diplomatic dance with China. He is simultaneously the most visible spiritual leader of a worldwide community of believers, a role that India honors and a political leader, a role that India permits but rejects in its own dealings with him.
As a Buddhist, the Dalai Lama preaches non-attachment, self-realization, inner actualization and non-violence; as a Tibetan he is admired by a people fiercely attached to their homeland, with most seeking its independence from China and many determined to fight for it. He is the most recognized worldwide symbol of a country that he has not seen for nearly five decades.
The Dalai Lama's message of peace, love and reconciliation has found adherents among Hollywood movie stars, pony-tailed hippies, Irish rock musicians and Indian politicians. But he has made no headway at all with the regime that rules his homeland and he has been unable to prevent Tibet's inexorable transformation into a Chinese province. His sermons fill football stadiums and he has won a Nobel Peace Prize, but most political leaders around the world shirk from meeting him openly, for fear of offending Beijing.
Indians are acutely conscious that, on this subject, the Chinese are easily offended. While India facilitated the highly publicized visit by US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala last month, it almost simultaneously canceled a scheduled meeting between him and Indian Vice President Mohammed Hamid Ansari.
When China summoned India's ambassador in Beijing to the foreign ministry at 2am for a dressing-down over the Tibetan protests in New Delhi, India meekly acquiesced to the insult. Though Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has publicly declared the Dalai Lama to be the "personification of nonviolence," India has let it be known that it does not support his political objectives. The government of India says Tibet is an integral part of China.
That position is not without detractors. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has criticized the Indian government for not "expressing concern over the use of force by the Chinese government" and instead "adopting a policy of appeasement towards China with scant regard to the country's national honor and foreign policy independence."
But few observers believe that the BJP would have conducted itself differently.
The stark truth is that India has no choice in the matter. It cannot undermine its own democratic principles and abridge the freedom of speech of Tibetans on its soil. Nor can it afford to alienate its largest trading partner, a neighbor and an emerging global superpower, which is known to be prickly over any presumed slights to its sovereignty over Tibet. India will continue to balance delicately on its Tibetan tightrope.
Shashi Tharoor, an acclaimed novelist and commentator, is a former under secretary-general of the UN.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS