Today is the 90th birthday of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. In an age marred by authoritarian resurgence, geopolitical fragmentation and ethical ambiguity, the Dalai Lama’s voice continues to resonate with uncommon moral clarity.
For decades, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has sought to control Tibetan Buddhism from the inside out. In 2007, Beijing codified its claim to religious authority by requiring all reincarnated lamas to be approved by the state. The absurdity of an atheist regime appointing spiritual leaders is not lost on the world. Nor is the precedent: In 1995, after the Dalai Lama recognized a six-year-old boy as the 11th Panchen Lama, China abducted the child and installed its own proxy. That boy — Gedhun Choekyi Nyima — has not been seen since.
Now, the 14th Dalai Lama has made it unequivocally clear: His own reincarnation would be chosen by the Gaden Phodrang Trust, in accordance with centuries-old Tibetan Buddhist tradition. He has further stated that his successor would be born in a free country — not under Chinese rule. This announcement has sparked a wave of international affirmation.
The US, through its Tibetan Policy and Support Act, has explicitly rejected China’s claim to control reincarnation and authorized sanctions against officials who interfere. Amnesty International has called China’s policy a “direct assault” on religious freedom. Buddhist communities across Asia have echoed the Dalai Lama’s call for spiritual autonomy.
At its core, this is a battle between coercion and conscience. China’s reincarnation policy is not about religion; it is about control. It seeks to manufacture legitimacy by co-opting the symbols of Tibetan identity. However, the world has seen this playbook before — in Hong Kong, in Xinjiang and in the silencing of dissent across China. The Dalai Lama’s stand is a reminder that some truths cannot be legislated away.
Moreover, the global embrace of his announcement reflects a deeper recognition: That Tibet’s struggle is not a relic of the past, but a living testament to the resilience of culture, faith and freedom. The Dalai Lama is not just a spiritual leader — he is a symbol of nonviolent resistance, of compassion in the face of conquest. His decision to continue the lineage is not about personal legacy; it is about ensuring that the Tibetan people — and their spiritual compass — are not erased.
Legitimacy cannot be forged in the halls of Beijing. It must be earned in the hearts of the faithful. In that realm, the Dalai Lama’s voice still echoes with unmatched clarity.
Let this 90th birthday renew our commitment — not just to His Holiness’ legacy, but to the future of a free and culturally vibrant Tibet. The measure of our admiration must be action. Anything less would dishonor the path he has walked on behalf of all of us.
Khedroob Thondup is a former member of the Tibetan parliament in exile.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS