A series of quick-paced events including- the passage of the “Resolve Tibet Act” by the US Congress, a unanimous resolution by the Canadian House of Commons recognising Tibetan claim for self-determination followed by a US bipartisan delegation of legislators to meet Dalai Lama at Dharmshala, have brought back global attention to the over seven decades old unresolved Tibetan issue. Though the period of colonisation has effectively ended by the mid-20th century, some territories are still under the stranglehold of imperialistic forces.

In this era of the free world, to evade global scrutiny and defend their stranglehold on the occupied territories, imperialist forces have tactfully renamed them as autonomous regions. Without an ounce of autonomy to even safeguard their cultural, religious and spiritual heritage, these regions are at the end the verge of losing their identity. The Buddhist Land of Snow, Tibet living under the throes of invading force is still awaiting a peaceful resolution to emerge as a self-governing Republic.

Known as the roof of the world, Tibet once known for its military might was a major power in Central Asia with territories stretching from Xian in China to Pamir and Samarkand in the West and the Himalayas in the South. The advent of Buddhism has changed the war-like nation. This was soon reflected in its attitude and approach towards its neighbouring countries- India, China and Mongolia.

Sandwiched between the two Asian giants the Himalayan territory which served as the buffer zone between India and China is now at the centre of a crucial fault line and holds the key to the Asian Peace. Contented with its spiritual recourse, cut off from the din and clamour of worldly affairs, Tibet lived in seclusion for centuries with interdependent interests and relations with neighbours. With over two thousand years of history of independent existence, the world hardly knew about Tibet until the Chinese invasion shook the territory from its complacency. By the time Tibetans realised that their freedom was snatched away, the situation had become irredeemable.

The upheavals and the trials of Tibet are largely unknown to the world. The nebulous identity of Tibet perpetrated by China largely dominated the worldview. The tribulations of Tibet remained mostly unknown and unheard. Impeded by a paucity of historical writings about Tibet, the world is largely unaware of its independent identity and rich religious and cultural heritage. The available knowledge chunk largely drawn from Han records tries to attest to the Chinese perceptions of Tibet. Cutting through the clutter of the bigoted discourse peddled by China to defend its occupation, Claude Arpi, a passionate Tibetologist through his years of research published a book- “The Fate of Tibet: When Big Insects Eat Small Insects” that delves into the historicity of Tibet and objectively unravels the story of the roof of the world.

The work was largely an outcome of his abiding interest in Tibet eventuated after he first met the Dalai Lama. His association with Tibet thus ensued and ever since he continued his research on Tibet. Tibet considered India as the ‘Land of the Gods’ from where Buddhism entered their land had a Priest-Patron relationship with Mongolia. By the end of the 13^th century, Khubilai Khan of Mongolia became the Emperor of China and he was succeeded by the Yuan Dynasty following which Tibetans continued their Choe-Yon or the Priest-Patron relationship. This relationship continued till the fall of the Manchu Dynasty in 1912. This relationship of equals was devoid of any superiority wherein Tibet provided religious services for the benefit of the people and the Patron was obliged to protect the Priest. Hence the matter of subordination or existence of a tributary system never existed.

Under the leadership of the 13^th Dalai Lama from 1913 till the PLA troops marched into Tibet, it existed as an independent country. During this period, Tibet signed the Simla agreement with British India where the Mc Mahon line demarcating the India-Tibetan border along the Eastern frontier was ratified. Hence the Chinese claims of the ‘suzerainty of Tibet’ stand invalidated. As an independent nation, Tibet also signed agreement with Mongolia as well. Similarly, Chinese assertions fail on many counts like- China has never administered Tibet directly nor was a standing Chinese army ever stationed in Tibet barring some troops deployed for the protected the Chinese Amban (representative). Even the maps published in 1914 by China during the Simla meetings do not show Tibet as part of the Chinese Empire during the Yuan Dynasty.

Burnishing claims of suzerainty, China in one of the White Papers flaunted its practice of awarding titles and rewards to Tibetan Lamas. Conferring titles has been a customary practice since the times of Mongolian rulers and it was often reciprocal as Dalai Lamas also gave titles to Kings. For example, the Third Dalai after receiving the title “Talei Lama” from Atlan Khan bestowed the title “Dharmaraja, Brahma, Lord of the Devas” on the Khan (p-74). Indeed, Vietnamese, Korean and Burmese were also beneficiaries of titles and awards given by Chinese and Mongol Emperors so does this mean that these emperors have a claim to the ownership of their nations?

In his work, the author clinically busts the Marxist narrative of their suzerainty of Tibet. After the death of the Emperor and Empress of the Manchu dynasty in 1908, Tibet’s Priest-Patron relationship with China ended. In 1910 when Chinese troops started pursuing the 13^th Dalai Lama, Thubten Gyatso escaped to India, and made Darjeeling his home. He developed good contacts with British India and signed a new trade treaty in July 1914. With this British India became a major player in Tibet and subsequently Tibetan access to the outside world was through India.

By 1948, Tibet accepted India as the legal inheritor of treaties, obligations and rights of British India. Soon, both countries established air connectivity, India even recognised Tibetan passports and provided arms and ammunition requested by Tibetans. For all purposes, Tibet functioned as an independent country. India had a full-fledged mission in Lhasa and trade marts in Yartung, Shigatse and Gartok.

Unlike the Indo-Tibetan border which was relatively demarcated (barring the Ladakh sector), the undemarcated Sino-Tibetan border turned restive with China setting its eyes on the Amdo and Kham provinces. Indeed, the PLA troops marched into Tibet relatively unopposed on October 7^th, 1950 and on October 25^th Chinese broke the news of invading the Himalayan territory to the world. The Communist Party which made no secret of its plans of “liberating Tibet, Taiwan and Hainan” accomplished its objective without any resistance.

The Indian leadership aware of Mao Zedong’s idea of ‘revolution’, who in his letters to Indian communists had stated that ‘India has to be liberated’ didn’t find anything wrong in the Chinese war and struggle. On the contrary, the socialist-leaning, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Indian Ambassador to China KM Pannikar believed that ‘a small dose of communism was not bad for a ‘feudal’ Tibet.

Knowing full well, the revolutionary zeal of Marxists and Mao’s inveterate China’s ‘Son of Heaven’ fetish- (a mandate coming from the Heaven to rule ‘all under Heaven’) and the strong superiority complex of ethnic Chinese, India disappointed Tibet by failing to offer full support. Smitten by the romantic idealism of Asian resurgence and ‘friendship at all costs with Communist China’, Nehru allowed the Communist takeover of Tibet without any hitch. For Pannikar, the loss of Tibet was worth the price of liberating Asia from ‘Western dominance’ and believed that “friendship at any cost (with China) was the only way to fight the’ last traces of imperialism in Asia’” (p301).

In his letter of June 1949, Sardar Patel prophetically warned Nehru- “We have to strengthen our position in Sikkim as well as in Tibet. The farther we keep away, the Communist forces, the better. Tibet has long been detached from China. I anticipate that as soon as the Communists have established themselves in the rest of China, they will try to destroy its autonomous existence. You have to consider carefully your policy towards Tibet in a such circumstance and prepare from now for that eventually”. Against the sane advice of several Indian leaders like Dr Rajendra Prasad, Acharya Kriplani, Jaya Prakash Narayana, Nehru remained indifferent to the Marxist march into Tibet.

Two weeks after news of the Chinese invasion of Tibet, KM Pannikar in his Memorandum to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China state said, “it is… not necessary to repeat that government of India’s interest is solely in a peaceful settlement of the issue … it has however been reported that some military action has taken place or is about to take place, which may affect the peaceful outcome of these negotiations” (p321). Ironically, when China was right up India’s border, the Indian ambassador was concerned about China’s entry into the UN and UNSC. Alarmed by the Indian reaction, Tsongdu (Tibetan National Assembly) noted –“it is pathetic to observe that the Indian Ambassador to China could not or would not see even a hint of the strategic implications for the security of his own country”(p-322).

Later India squandered its stakes by meekly surrendering its special privileges in Tibet. By failing to even raise alarm over the Tibetan issue, India allowed Communist China to get away with its brazen expansionism. Eager to play a larger global role in mediation during the Korean War around the same time, Nehru let go off ‘the Tibetan issue.’ India informed Lhasa that it wouldn’t even sponsor the Tibetan appeal at the UN to not anger China.

Nehru’s priorities of avoidance of world war and maintenance of honourable and peaceful relations with China have cost India its long-term security and territorial integrity.  Steeped in romantic idealism replete with ambiguity while the UK was struggling with legalities at the UN, Nehru rejected the legal arguments. He even requested the US to refrain from publicly condemning China as he “feared that such condemnation might lend credence to Chinese charges that Western powers had an interest in Tibet and that the Americans were exerting an influence over the Indian policy”(p-342). Nehruvian appeasement of China knew no bounds and he allowed the ground beneath his feet to slip and refused to acknowledge the true intents of Communist China till the 1962 war.

Mao claimed that it was their ‘sacred duty’ to liberate Tibet and their communique openly proclaimed that PLA troops were freeing Tibet of its ‘olds’ (akin to the four ‘olds’ of the Cultural Revolution- Old ideas, Old Culture, Old traditions and Old Customs).

Enamoured by the idealistic perception of Asia as the custodian of peace, Nehru bent over backward to be in the good books of Mao. Nehru admitted in his Telegram to Krishna Menon that he wanted things to remain vague and added, “I have answered them (questions asked at press conferences) rather vaguely and tried to avoid direct commitment. We do not intend any such declaration (regarding Tibet) because whatever we may say may be embarrassing either from a Chinese or a Tibetan point of view”. India refused to be part of the 1951 San Francisco conference to sign the Japanese Peace Treaty, as it lacked a clause restoring Formosa (Taiwan) to China. Nehru’s deplorable naivety and China syndrome have permanently imperiled India’s sovereignty.

Over seven decades now, China continues to trammel over historical agreements with impunity and undermines Indian interests. Hence it becomes doubly imperative to get acquainted with the events of the past and the Himalayan blunders to carve out an assertive Tibetan policy prioritising national interests.

Geopolitics have always been rife with power dynamics of big powers staking small nations for their larger ambitions. In the early 20^th century, Britain found it convenient to prop up an ambiguity regarding the independent status of Tibet to prevent it from allying with Russia and China. This nebulous suzerainty clause tweaked into the tripartite agreement has permanently snatched away the freedom of the ‘roof of the world’ and brought nuclear nations facing each other at the border.

Riddled with episodes of expansionist exploits as China continues to make farcical claims over Indian territories, India shouldn’t shy away from playing the Tibetan card and formulate its long-term China policy accordingly.

Laid out in twenty-seven chapters, the book, a compendium on Tibet is a must-read for China observers and foreign policy analysts for a discreet understanding of Indian diplomacy during early independence era days.

Pages: 432

Publishers: Har-Anand Publications Private Limited.

Image source: Amazon.com