With China rejecting the Tibetans’ contentions on the succession issue, India is dragged into the conflict in a throwback to 1959, when the Dalai Lama sought refuge in India from the invading Chinese army, triggering a Sino-Indian standoff that continues to this day.

The ongoing dispute between China and the Tibetan refugees in India over selecting the next Dalai Lama threatens to further exacerbate tension between India and China.

Ever since the current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th in line, turned 90 on 5 July, his followers, many of whom are Tibetan refugees in India, have been discussing the issue of succession amid China’s assertion that only the Chinese government can determine the succession procedure and give official sanction to the successor.

The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan diaspora categorically reject China’s claims, as they do not accept Beijing’s temporal and spiritual authority over Tibet.

India is not directly involved, but nevertheless faces entanglement. Since 1959, when the Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans fled Chinese-occupied Tibet, India has hosted them under the condition that they refrain from anti-China activities.

But despite the Indian injunction, the Dalai Lama became a global political figure, though only as a symbol of peaceful resistance to Chinese expansionism and authoritarianism. To no one’s surprise, he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 with US backing.

Unable to dismantle the Dalai Lama’s influence over Tibetans, Beijing has been straining every nerve to control the institution, claiming historical precedents. But Tibetans counter this, saying that their leaders had been independent before the 1959 invasion.

The current Dalai Lama insists that his successor, or reincarnation as he puts it, must come from outside China, with the “Gaden Phodrang Trust” holding sole authority to identify his “reincarnation”.

In the Tibetan tradition, the search for a Dalai Lama begins after the incumbent’s death, guided by signs like the direction of the funeral pyre smoke, oracles’ visions, and holy sites such as Tibet’s Lhamo Latso lake.

A committee of high-ranking Lamas identifies young boys born near the time of the previous Dalai Lama’s passing and subjects them to tests to confirm their identity. Thereafter, the chosen child undergoes rigorous training in Buddhist philosophy and secular leadership.

China, which asserts its sovereignty over Tibet, demands that the successor be born in China and be approved by Beijing through the “golden urn” method, historically used during the Qing dynasty (1644–1912). The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ms Mao Ning emphasised that this process, along with Beijing’s approval, is mandatory. China deems any exile-appointed Dalai Lama “illegitimate”.

But the present Dalai Lama dismisses the picking of the successor from a “golden urn”, saying that it lacks “spiritual legitimacy”. He also points out that this method was not used for the 9th, 13th, or his own selection.

Tibetans do admit that the golden urn method was used sometimes, but only to appease China’s Qing dynasty rulers.

India threw its hat into the ring when its Minister for Minorities, Kiren Rijiju, a Buddhist, reinforced the Tibetan stance, stating that the Dalai Lama alone can decide his successor. More recently, the Chief Minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, added to the controversy by asserting that his state’s borders were with “Tibet and not China”. This contradicted India’s official policy of accepting Tibet as part of China.

Beijing is yet to comment on Khandu’s claim, perhaps because the Indian Ministry of External Affairs promptly stepped in and distanced itself from Khandu’s assertion.

Be that as it may, the issue of the Dalai Lama’s succession is set to fester, adding to existing Sino-Indian tensions over the border and China’s inroads into India’s South Asian backyard.

Complex Sino-Tibetan History

Sino-Tibetan tensions are not new. According to historian Kallie Szczepanski of Boston University, tension has marked the relationship periodically for close to 1,500 years.

In 692 CE, China reclaimed its western territories from Tibetan control. But in 763 CE, Tibet recoiled and seized the Tang capital, Chang’an. In the 13th century, Tibet allied with Genghis Khan’s Mongols, who had swept through China. But Tibet managed to retain its autonomy despite paying tribute to the Mongols.

When the Mongol Yuan Empire fell in 1368, Tibet reasserted its independence, refusing to pay tribute to the successor Ming dynasty.

The Qing dynasty (1644–1912) saw Sino-Tibetan relations varying from time to time. In 1653, the Dalai Lama visited Emperor Shunzhi, but not as a vassal. It was a respectful “priest-patron” relationship, with the Dalai Lama being the “priest” and the Qing Emperor being the “patron”. As a result, the Dalai Lama did not “kowtow” to the Chinese Emperor.

But when a Qing Commissioner was killed in Tibet in 1750, China sent troops to quell the rebels. Although China asserted its sovereignty over Tibet, it left its day-to-day administration to the Dalai Lama, who was a temporal ruler besides being the pontiff of Tibetan Buddhism.

However, Sino-Tibetan relations were by no means happy. Both the Tibetans and the Chinese kept a close watch on successive Dalai Lamas. If the Chinese suspected a Dalai Lama of disloyalty, he would be poisoned. Likewise, if the Tibetans felt that a Dalai Lama was kowtowing to the Chinese, he would be poisoned! Thus, the Dalai Lamas were walking on a knife edge.

In 1893, the Dalai Lama rejected a border treaty which the British in India had suggested. The British then invaded Tibet in 1903 and acquired partial control over its affairs.

However, in 1904, the 13th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso, fled to India after China claimed sovereignty over Tibet and threatened to invade. He returned to Lhasa in 1909, but only to flee again in 1910, when confronted by Chinese troops.

The 1911 Chinese anti-monarchical revolution enabled Tibet to expel the Chinese forces. Thubten Gyatso then boldly declared that Tibet was an “independent nation”.

The 1914 Simla Convention involving Tibet, British India, and China granted China control over “Inner Tibet” (now the Qinghai province of China) while recognising “Outer Tibet’s” autonomy under the Dalai Lama. But China refused to sign the agreement, objecting to Britain’s claim over “South Tibet”, which is now India’s Arunachal Pradesh state.

China still claims Arunachal Pradesh on a number of grounds, including the existence of a notable Tibetan monastery at Tawang in the state. China has gone to the extent of giving Chinese names to scores of places in Arunachal Pradesh to underline its claim.     

Troubled Future

As the Dalai Lama’s succession looms as he advances in age, India is called upon to perform a delicate balancing act. If recognising a China-appointed Dalai Lama risks alienating Tibetan refugees and Indian political sentiment, supporting a successor chosen by Tibetan exiles could escalate tensions with China.

The issue is bound to test India’s diplomatic skills, as the ground to be navigated is, at once, geopolitical and deeply sentimental.