Almost a decade after the People’s Republic of China incorporated Tibet in 1950, the Dalai Lama fled to India. He set up a government-in-exile after a failed uprising against Chinese rule and continued to call for Tibetan autonomy, leading China to view Tibetan independence as a threat to territorial integrity and national unity. The Dalai Lama’s advocacy for “middle-way” autonomy directly conflicts with China’s strict control polities, especially since it calls for cultural, religious, and environmental preservation within Tibet.
China has long aimed to absorb Tibet into China through systematically weakening Tibetan religion and culture, especially due to its long history of cultural imperialism and censorship of Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama. This ranges from China selecting its own Panchen Lama (the second highest authority in Buddhism) to exerting influence over the selection of the next Dalai Lama. As the current Dalai Lama has hinted at breaking tradition by choosing his successor, China seeks to intervene in this process to ensure a successor will align with its political agenda of maintaining control over Tibet and undermining the country’s independence movements.
China’s efforts to control Tibet and the Dalai Lama exhibit cultural imperialism based on China’s suppression of Tibetan culture and imposition of Chinese culture and politics onto Tibetan society. China’s claims of sovereignty over Tibet and involvement in choosing the next Dalai Lama undermines the autonomy and cultural integrity of the Tibetan people. As the Dalai Lama is not only a spiritual leader but also a symbol of Tibetan cultural and religious identity, China aims to impose its own cultural and political authority over Tibetan religious practices. For instance, six to seven million Tibetans who live in China face harsh rule with some even retaining little to no memory of their homeland’s past, and Tibetans in exile are scattered across the globe. Tibetan schoolchildren are “compelled to attend Chinese-language boarding schools away from their homes, raising fears that their own language will soon disappear.”
With the rise of social media, China has resorted to popular platforms to employ censorship and propaganda tactics in an effort to shape popular opinion about the Dalai Lama and restrict its own people from Western social media. Individuals in China recognize the dangers of utilizing social media to express their political opinions and instead choose to keep their beliefs offline. Moreover, communication with Tibet from outside countries requires coded language. For instance, ‘Aku Pema’ (Uncle Pema), a code for the Dalai Lama, stems from a popular Tibetan song about an absent loved one, but it has become so widely known that few dare to use it. The Chinese media regularly calls the Dalai Lama a fraud and “the source of turmoil in Tibetan society.” Additionally, by allowing only negative and critical information about the Dalai Lama to be shared on social media, the Chinese government is systematically wiping out Tibetan culture and the Dalai Lama from the modern-day textbook. For instance, when the Dalai Lama kissed an eight-year-old boy lightly on the lips and asked if he would like to suck his tongue, this video went viral. The Chinese government ensured that the film was aired widely and failed to provide an explanation that the Dalai Lama is known for teasing and that sticking out the tongue is a common greeting in Tibetan culture.
Social media and digital activism have enabled international awareness about Chinese repression of Tibetan culture. Regardless, it is difficult for the social media movement in Tibet to gain widespread traction and attention. Tibetans cannot share their experiences regarding China’s repression of Buddhism because of Chinese propaganda and the Great Firewall, China’s censorship system that restricts access to the internet. Fear of repercussions from the Chinese government forces Tibetans and their relatives to settle for “being a population spoken for and about.”
Despite this, Tibet’s culture is still managing to permeate China, as Tibetan Buddhism is flourishing inside China, and there are well over twice the number of Buddhists compared to Communist Party members. The Dalai Lama’s persistence in resisting Tibetan cultural homogenization is reflected in Tibetan Buddhism’s popularity both within and outside China.
The power struggle between China and the Dalai Lama’s followers over the future leadership of Tibetan Buddhism holds both significant political and religious implications. Recognizing the consequences of political alienation, China has worked tirelessly to obstruct relations between foreign governments and the Dalai Lama because few governments want to harm their economic relationship with China. While the Dalai Lama still represents moral legitimacy and international influence with American backing, China seems willing to stir trouble regardless of the consequences. In relation to China’s quest for dominance over the Pacific-Asia region, Tibet is like a thorn in China’s side. However, to many Tibetans, the Dalai Lama is a beacon of hope, leading to the important question of who the next Dalai Lama will be and how he will be chosen.
This past July, President Biden signed the Tibet Dispute Act, which aims to resume Beijing’s talks with Tibetan leaders – stalled since 2010. It also pushes China to address the Tibetan people’s historical, cultural, religious, and linguistic identity, as well as a negotiated agreement. In response, China has expressed strong opposition because the act interferes with China’s domestic affairs and sends the “severely wrong signal” to the “Tibet independence” forces. The Dalai Lama, who recently turned 89, has maintained that it will clarify questions regarding his succession around his 90th birthday.
The Tibet Dispute Act challenges Washington’s long-standing precedent of recognizing Tibet as part of China. While the U.S. has previously condemned China for human rights violations against Tibet and supported the rights of Tibetans to practice their religion and preserve their culture, the real question is whether the U.S. is genuinely concerned about the people in the region or if its focus lies in advancing geopolitical interests. The U.S. has a complex history of intervening in other regions for its own strategic purposes, often withdrawing or adopting an isolationist stance when it fails to resolve the situation or when more pressing political or economic interests arise elsewhere.
What happens in Tibet offers a telling preview of what could unfold in Taiwan and China’s periphery influences in the region. Taiwan represents a bastion of democracy in the midst of China’s expanding influence. If China succeeds in suppressing the Dalai Lama’s influence and fully assimilating Tibet into its communist system, could Taiwan face a similar fate? The trajectory of Chinese control in Tibet raises critical questions about the future of democracy in Asia and its resistance to Beijing’s authority.
Image source: Wikimedia Commons
.jpeg){kind=link}