Tibet comfortably sat on the highest plateau in the world and it was referred to as the roof of the world. For centuries, this small country enjoyed a peaceful harmonious coexistence not just one person with the other but also with nature. Its uniqueness was further advocated for by their desire to live a solitary life, away from disturbances from the outside world. This even earned it the name ‘Shangrila’- meaning a “mystical and magnetizing country.” This is the beautiful picture of Tibet from their eyes. On the other side, China viewed Tibet as a remote country that had no expertise in the field of self management. They felt that this was a country that needed skilled support from civilized and developed people like the Chinese. Consequently, they offered to conquer the country using military force which resulted into war and several deaths. It also resulted into exiling of the Dalai Lama (Dharmakara, par. 4). These two perspectives have created a great rift between the two countries. While Tibet believes that it is a sovereign state that needs autonomy and self governance, completely free from the Chinese dominance, China on its part believes that Tibet is a region that rightfully belongs to them. They argue that this position has existed for ages and that no talks will make any difference. Consequently, this paper will examine the historical context that has led to this rift and identify the future of Tibet and the exiled Dalai Lama based on the historical and the current state of the affairs.
What, actually, has brought about this intricate relationship between China and Tibet lies in the historical background of the two countries. This history shows that Tibet has been under the Chinese rule for several centuries. According to the Chinese position, and the position which justifies the occupation of Tibet by China, the Mongolians were one of the largest and most powerful nationalities within China. These people gained great power and hence witnessed great expansion during the 13th Century. Under Genghis Khan, the Mongolians managed to unify the diverse nationalities within a single Khanate which was ruled by a centralized structure. This was 1206. Subsequently, China was formed. This further resulted in 1271 in the development of the Yuan dynasty. It was during this period that Tibet was incorporated within China. The justifiers of the Chinese occupation of Tibet argue that Tibet was incorporated by the Mongol Khanates without any use of force (Kauffner, par. 3). In fact, they further argue that the different nationalities within China – Tibetans included, enjoyed political, economic and cultural prosperity under the unified rule. According to this point of view, at no point did China impose its rule upon Tibet. The incorporation of this country was a peaceful event that has eventually resulted into prosperity.
Moving closer home, China has been accused of forcibly relocating the Han people into Tibet. According to them, Tibet was a less developed country that was in need of skilled support from a more developed China. As a result, China took it as its responsibility to support Tibet-as one of its nationalities, by providing teachers and other skilled employees to this region. On their part, the Tibetans viewed this as a weapon against their establishment as an independent nation. The Dalai Lama viewed this as a way of mellowing the long admired Tibetan culture and way of life so that their solidarity could be messed up with (Hessler, par. 4). With Hans accounting for more than fifty percent population of the Tibetan population and the number steadily increasing, the Dalai had all the reasons to believe that this was a political weapon.
This historical perspective of the Chinese is contrary to the Tibetan and the Dalai Lama’s position. According to the latter, Tibet was a free country. It was a sovereign country that comfortably maintained its culture, language, government system, architecture, currency etc. This remained so for a long period of time until the Chinese invaded the small country causing deaths and exiling of the Dalai Lama. Unlike the Chinese argument that Tibet was peacefully incorporated within China, the Tibetans argue that China forcibly invaded their country and therefore they are not by any means the subjects of China. Forcible invasion does not justify a country to be legally incorporated into another. Therefore, Tibet is a free country that yearns to revert to its former peaceful existence (Kauffner, par. 7).
Reuters (par. 1) points out that the relationship between China and Tibet was established in the 13th Century during the Yuan Dynasty. The relationship continued until the invasion of the imperialists which led to a weaker occupation of to this country. The total independence of Tibet was achieved in 1912 when the Dalai Lama sent packing the Chinese troops occupying Lhasa. Since then, Tibet governed itself. However, the independence of Tibet was recognized by neither China nor Western countries. In 1950, the Chinese government sent troops to Tibet so that they could reclaim their rightful land. The two countries reached an agreement by signing the 17 point Agreement of 1951. However, Tibet, under the leadership of the Dalai Lama organized for an uprising against China in 1959. This friction continued until the year 1979 when the Dalai Lama opted to sacrifice the call for independence and allow the two countries to take a “middle way.” Unfortunately, China has refused to take the middle way positing that the Dalai Lama was only taking this as a way of finding avenues to continue pushing for self governance.
Considering the positions of the two sides of the argument, one wonders whether a possible solution could be found. Furthermore, the future of Tibet continues to remain in the dark as people ask themselves; what is the future of Tibet and the Dalai Lama? Considering the present state of affairs, Tibet will not be accepted by the Chinese government. However, the Dalai Lama’s future can be considered. This is according to Chinese government as reported by Sharma (par. 6). According to the Chinese government, Tibet is a region within China since 1959 and that the Dalai Lama has no legal powers to represent the Tibetans. They are all citizens of the People’s Republic of China. The Dalai Lama will be accepted back into Lhasa only if he accepts to contribute to the development of China as a Chinese citizen.
In conclusion, the future of Tibet and the Dalai Lama could be bleak. This is attributed to the strong stand as portrayed by both sides. To begin with, the two sides give different historical perspectives of the existence of Tibet under the Chinese rule. Unless a merging point between the two historical perspectives is identified, the rift will continue. In addition, the political positions of the two sides cause an impediment for the recognition of Tibet as a sovereign country. With the Chinese government strongly believing that Tibet is a part of China and that the people of Tibet must work towards the development of this republic as Chinese citizens, there is no chances that they are at any point going to be an acceptance for the sovereignty of Tibet. According to the Chinese, the Dalai Lama can only return to Tibet if he accepts to come back as a full Chinese citizen and strip himself the political position of representing the people of Tibet. In addition, they point out that the Dalai Lama will only be accepted back in Tibet if he distances himself from violence and also makes his people avoid anti-China violence and demonstrations. Unfortunately, the Dalai Lama does not look like he is ready to conform to all this. He believes that he cannot live under the Chinese rule now or even in his re-incarnated life. He says, “If I die in exile… my reincarnation will not be born under Chinese control…That reincarnation …will be outside, in the free world. This I can say with absolute certainty” (Tibet Human Rights 1). With such certainty, the future looks bleak for any hopes for Tibet.
However, if the international community could push for talks between China and the government of Tibet, there are hopes that a solution could be identified. This is further strengthened by the fact that the Tibetan side is ready to take a middle path by accepting to live autonomously but under the Chinese government. If the international community can find a way though which China will be made to take up this suggestion, then there is a future for Tibet- not as an independent country, but as an autonomous region under the Chinese rule.
Works Cited
Dharmakara. Historical Status of Tibet. Web.
Hessler, Peter. Tibet through Chinese Eyes. The Atlantic. 1999. Web.
Kauffner, Peter. What is the Historical Basis of the Chinese Claim to Tibet? 2009. Web.
Reuters. Fact box: Historical Ties between China and Tibet. 2009. Web.
Sharma, Pranay. China Willing to Talk to Dalai Lama about his Future, Not Tibet. 2008. Web.
Tibet Human Rights. The Future of Tibet in Exile. 2009. Web.