Denial of passports to Tibetans is not simply an inconvenience but a calculated tool of political control, cultural erasure and religious suppression. By restricting mobility, the Chinese state violates fundamental rights guaranteed in its own constitution and in international law, and it creates long-term social, cultural and humanitarian costs for the Tibetan people.
Forced separation from families is a significant issue for Tibetans abroad, as they face difficulties connecting with relatives in Tibet. Many cannot visit dying family members due to passport refusals, and those who attempt to return risk severe punishment. Elderly pilgrims have encountered detention, interrogation and document confiscation, illustrating a regime that manipulates mobility to exert control.
China’s passport policies must be seen within the broader framework of Sinicization and “grid management,” which seek to transform Tibetan identity into a version acceptable to the state. Surveillance and ideological control intensify through travel restrictions that even affect Tibetans studying abroad, whose families are harassed to silence them from attending political or cultural events in exile. The system is designed to isolate Tibetans from global engagement and weaken their culture and faith.
Following the 2012 Kalachakra Initiation in India, thousands who returned to Tibet had their passports confiscated and were sent to “patriotic education” programs. Beyond religion, Tibetans are barred from healthcare, education and cultural exchanges overseas — rights other Chinese citizens enjoy.
These restrictions clearly violate domestic and international laws. China’s Exit and Entry Administration Law affirms every citizen’s right to apply for a passport, and the constitution guarantees equality before the law. Yet Tibetans face arbitrary denials based on loyalty tests.
Internationally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee freedom of movement. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties obliges nations not to undermine their treaty commitments. China’s systematic denial of passports constitutes a breach of both domestic and international obligations.
These violations have drawn global concern. UN human rights experts sought clarification from China in 2018, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination condemned the near-total ban on Tibetan passports. Ironically, China permits travel for political spectacle — such as Indian pilgrimages to Kailash Mansarovar — while restricting Tibetans from similar journeys.
Beijing aim sto restrict the cultural, religious and familial ties that uphold Tibetan identity rather than promoting security. China erodes Tibetan autonomy and increases alienation by restricting mobility.
To address the issue of human rights in Tibet, international bodies and governments should urge China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and impose sanctions on officials responsible for discriminatory passport policies.
Prioritizing religious freedom in dialogues with China is essential, and civil society must elevate Tibetan voices, framing the denial of mobility as a significant human rights concern.
By severing Tibetans from their families, religion and cultural exchange, China deliberately inflicts profound psychological and social harm. True resolution requires sustained global advocacy, solidarity among exiles and the recognition that freedom of movement is vital to the survival of Tibetan identity.
Tenzing Nyidon holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Lady Shri Ram College for Women, Delhi University. She is currently an intern at the Tibet Policy Institute.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS