On Wednesday last week, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, currently living in exile in India, issued a statement affirming the continuation of the institution of the Dalai Lama and the practice of reincarnation. Tibetan Buddhists across the globe welcomed the declaration. It arrived as the Chinese government is intensifying efforts not only to impose total control over Tibetan Buddhism, but also to erase Tibetan identity, culture and history.
The statement holds particular symbolic significance for Tibetans. Although the Dalai Lama formally stepped down from political leadership in 2011, he remains the architect of modern Tibetan nationalism in exile. For Tibetans, he is more than a spiritual figure; he is a symbol of continuity, unity and moral resistance. His statement last week reaffirms this role and signals that the Tibetan struggle, spiritual and political, is far from over.
Several key points in the statement underscore its profound implications:
First, it serves as a bold political declaration. The Dalai Lama’s statement on reincarnation is far more than a religious message. It is a bold political act reaffirming his enduring relevance amid mounting Chinese pressure. For years, Beijing has rejected his authority to decide his own reincarnation, asserting that the Chinese state holds ultimate control over the process.
That means that reincarnation is not merely a spiritual issue, but lies at the intersection of geopolitics, sovereignty and legitimacy. The Dalai Lama’s declaration reasserts the political agency of Tibetans and challenges China’s attempt to rewrite Tibetan history and identity.
Second, it signals an assertion of religious sovereignty. The Dalai Lama made it unequivocally clear that only the Gaden Phodrang Trust, his traditional office, has the sole authority to oversee his reincarnation. That directly refutes China’s claim to control the process and challenges its promotion of the historically contested “Golden Urn” method. It is a forceful rejection of religious colonization.
Third, the statement embodies pan-Buddhist solidarity. The decision to continue the reincarnation institution was made in response to requests from Buddhists across the Himalayan region, Mongolia, Buddhist republics of the Russian Federation and even China, the Dalai Lama said. That frames the issue as a regional spiritual concern, not merely a Tibetan or ethnic one. It expands the constituency involved in the reincarnation debate and bolsters cross-border Buddhist solidarity.
Fourth, the Dalai Lama emphasized that followers inside Tibet and Chinese Buddhists have also called for the continuation of the institution. That has two important implications: It signals that Chinese interference contradicts the wishes of the very people it claims to represent. It also implies that if Beijing attempts to install its own Dalai Lama, as it did with the Panchen Lama, it would face a deep legitimacy crisis, as Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist communities are unlikely to accept a state-appointed figure.
Fifth, the statement issued by the Dalai Lama regarding his reincarnation has also been endorsed by the heads of other major sects of Tibetan Buddhism, including the Sakya, Kagyu and Nyingma traditions. The collective endorsement signals a rare moment of unity among the different schools of Tibetan Buddhism, reinforcing a shared stance on a matter of deep religious and political significance. It underscores a pan-sectarian consensus that resists external interference and bolsters the collective legitimacy of the Tibetan religious community.
Last, the statement underscores the resistance to cultural erasure. The Dalai Lama’s reaffirmation of reincarnation is also an act of spiritual and cultural resistance. It defies China’s long-standing project of dismantling Tibetan religious institutions and identities. It signals that Tibetans are not surrendering spiritually, culturally or politically. In this context, reincarnation becomes a gesture of survival, a declaration that Tibetan identity would endure beyond the life of the current Dalai Lama.
Another important development is the crucial support from India. In March, the Tibetan Advocacy Alliance, a coalition of Tibetan non-governmental organizations based in India, launched a campaign calling for Indian recognition of the Dalai Lama’s exclusive authority over his reincarnation. Forty-six members of the Indian parliament signed on in support.
Following the Dalai Lama’s statement, Indian Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Kiren Rijiju voiced support for the Dalai Lama, as did Pema Khandu, chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, a state China claims as part of “South Tibet.” Their support carries significant symbolic and geopolitical weight, especially given China’s border disputes with India and its attempts to delegitimize the Dalai Lama’s authority in the region.
Last week’s statement reasserts the Dalai Lama’s dual role as spiritual leader and political symbol of the Tibetan nation. For Tibetans, the continuation of the Dalai Lama is not simply a matter of religious tradition; it is about the survival of their identity, the rejection of external domination and the assertion of a future that remains unwritten, but not surrendered. In the face of appropriation and despair, the affirmation of reincarnation is a powerful expression of hope, sovereignty and refusal.
Dolma Tsering is a postdoctoral researcher in National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University’s Department of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval