ISSN 2330-717X

‘One China’ Policy Should Exclude Tibet – OpEd


In the wake of Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, China has conveyed it’s objection to India and has sharply criticized the visit of the Dalai Lama. However, India has ignored such protests from China and the Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh has taken pace with dignity and amidst warm reception from the people. The visit of the Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh has been noted by the media all over the world, which has only angered China.

In his speech in Arunachal Pradesh, the Dalai Lama said clearly that the acts of repressive measures employed by China in Tibet are similar to the atrocities committed by Polpot’s in Cambodia, when more than a million Cambodians were massacred in 1970s. The Dalai Lama has also accused China of sending wrong information about his visit to Arunachal Pradesh. Further, the Dalai Lama has slammed China for making a bid to name his successor in Tibet. He further said that the Chinese people were being fed with wrong information about him and the totalitarianism in China has done great damage to the Chinese people who have every right to know the reality.

Millions of people around the world are convinced that Tibet has been wronged by China and justice must be done to the people of Tibet. The world conscience is clearly disturbed by the aggressive behavior of China in Tibet and China is well aware of it, which has made China feel jittery. The Tibetans living across the world are longing to go back to Tibet and live in Tibet , maintaining the traditional value systems that the Tibetans are associated with.

While China is militarily and economically strong and many world governments think twice before antagonising China on any count, nevertheless the fact remains that the world knows that China’s position on Tibet is unjustifiable and unacceptable. The world opinion is bound to assert itself in one form or the other sooner or later that will make China quit Tibet. The history of the world have repeatedly revealed that the truth and fair dealings alone triumph ultimately.

While the world opinion is certainly in favour of a liberated and independent Tibet, the recent reported statement of the Dalai Lama that he has no issues with the “One China” policy, ensuring economic benefit to Tibet and providing the right to preserve their culture and language in Tibet has surprised everyone.

This reported statement has sent a confusing signal amongst millions of supporters of Tibet all over the world , as to whether the Dalai Lama has accepted that Tibet would function under China as part of China. He was also reported to have said that he would return to China if China would show the green light. The reported statement of the Dalai Lama that the “whole world knows that I am not seeking independence of Tibet” has dismayed supporters of the Tibet.

I appeal to his Holiness the Dalai Lama to clarify his stand in the matter and confirm as to whether his statement has been misreported in the media.

Tibet has been an independent country for hundreds of years and was occupied by China by force. Many Tibetans including the Dalai Lama had to flee Tibet to protect their safety and stay alive to fight for Tibet.

Tibet being a part of China under “One China” policy is an unacceptable stand, as Tibet has all the claims to be an independent country following it’s own policies and programmes and beliefs. Tibet should never be a part of “one China policy”

Tibetans across the world and supporters of Tibet’s cause are waiting eagerly to know as to whether the Dalai Lama really meant what he was reported to have said.

Click here to have Eurasia Review's newsletter delivered via RSS, as an email newsletter, via mobile or on your personal news page.

N. S. Venkataraman

N. S. Venkataraman is a trustee with the "Nandini Voice for the Deprived," a not-for-profit organization that aims to highlight the problems of downtrodden and deprived people and support their cause. To promote probity and ethical values in private and public life and to deliberate on socio-economic issues in a dispassionate and objective manner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *