Buckling under Dragon's pressures

The Dalai Lama with Lobsang Sangay, the leader of the Central Tibetan Administration, Dharamsala

Vijay Gokhale and P K Singh How come the Modi government is showing signs of buckling under Chinese pressure on India's Tibetan policy since then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru gave shelter to thousands of refugees and the Dalai Lama in 1959 on humanitarian grounds? The first sign of this change in India's stance on the Dalai Lama became publicly visible when Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale sent a note to Cabinet Secretary P K Singh asking him to send out a directive to senior officials to stay clear of the two events – interfaith prayer on March 31 and "Thank you, India" on April 1, marking the Dalai Lama's 60th year of exile. The exiled Tibetan leader first stepped foot on March 31, 1959.
The events which were scheduled to take place in New Delhi were cancelled. However, the "Thank you, India" event was shifted to Dharamsala. Interestingly, the Foreign Secretary's note was sent on the eve of his visit to Beijing on February 22. It said that the events were taking place at a "sensitive time in the context of India's relations with China".
For China, of course, Tibet was always "a sensitive issue". But India has always considered Tibet and its people as a cultural and humanitarian matter, right from Nehru days. Why should South Block mix up a humanitarian issue with political sensitivities of Beijing?
This is all the more surprising since Prime Minister Modi was seen particularly pro-Tibet. He even went to the extent of inviting President of the Tibetan government in exile Lobsang Sangay for his swearing-in ceremony in 2014. Just a few months later, an inter-faith conference, similar to the one cancelled this month, was held after President Jinping Xi's visit to India.
It may be recalled that during his meeting with President Xi in September 2014, Prime Minister

Narendra Modi with Xi Jinping Modi even refused reference to the one-China policy in the bilateral agreement despite Xi's insistence. New Delhi then insisted that Beijing should first "stop questioning India's sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.
Apparently, New Delhi's latest stance is "out of character" for the Modi government. Doesn't it indicate that the Foreign Office is reassessing its China policy in the face of Beijing's aggressive postures, starting with the Doklam stand-off and fresh Chinese build-up in the Himalayan areas etc.
Even China's sole strongman President Xi has given enough indications that he is no different from Mao in pursuing China's geo-political goals and territorial ambitions.
The moot point now is: will the South Block's Tibet-related latest gestures bring about a change of heart in Beijing vis-à-vis New Delhi? I doubt it, though foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale, who seems to have set the ball rolling for New Delhi's new policy towards Beijing, is a wellintentioned person. He was
India's ambassador to Beijing till recently. So, he is quite familiar with the Chinese establishment. I am, however, not sure what exactly are his calculations behind India's changed postures towards the Dalai Lama.
Is it simply a tactical "rethink" to arrest the on-going slide in India- China relationship since 2015? Or, is he solely taking the burden of mending the ties with China without any reciprocal effort on Beijing's part? I don't have any straight answer to these queries.

The moot point now is: will South Block's Tibet-related latest gestures bring about a change of heart in Beijing vis-à-vis New Delhi? I doubt it, though foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale, who seems to have set the ball rolling for New Delhi's new policy towards Beijing, is a wellintentioned person. He was India's ambassador to Beijing till recently. So, he is quite familiar with the Chinese establishment.

Having visited China on a few occasions, I can only say that it is quite a Herculean task to understand the mindset of the Chinese leadership. In my attempt to understand China, I always keep Mao's famous dictum "Signal Right, Turn Left" at the back of my mind.
I am of the view that our leaders invariably allow themselves to be carried away by the old-world sentiments of "Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai" of the fifties. Let us not forget what happened in 1962 following the Panchsheel agreement with Beijing wherein we virtually surrendered our geo-political interests in the Tibetan region, hoping that China would honour its words and provide Tibet "full autonomy" and related religious and cultural freedom.
What happened subsequently is a tragic tale of history. The Dalai Lama's flight from his homeland along with thousands of refugees is part of that Great Indian Tragedy.
I, however, must compliment Jawaharlal Nehru for keeping alive the great Indian tradition of humanitarianism alive and welcoming the Tibetans in distress with open arms.
What is, however, disquieting is that under the Modi regime even two humanitarian events – an interfaith prayer led by the exiled spiritual leader and "Thank you, India" – were not allowed to take place in New Delhi. Equally regrettable is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is yet to have had an official meeting with the Dalai Lama. What a pity!
I am not sure whether Vijay Gokhale's hope "to build on the convergences between India and China and address differences on the basis of mutual respect and sensitivity to each other concerns, interests and aspirations" would be fulfilled in the days to come.
Of course, "an antagonistic relationship with China does not benefit India". But "antagonizing" posturing has never been India's policy. It has been China's prerogative. We look at the support for the Dalai Lama on humanitarian grounds. If Beijing is extra sensitive on the Dalai Lama, the problem lies with the

I agree with former foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal that "past record has shown that China hasn't changed one bit". Still, we have taken upon ourselves "the burden of reaching out to China".

Kanwal Sibal Chinese. They have managed to forcibly occupy the Tibetan territory, but have so far to win the hearts of Tibetans. This reflects poorly on China's expansionist policies and its strong-arm tactics of repression and suppression. In fact, New Delhi has reasons to be upset the way Beijing has been playing Pakistan's terror card to add to New Delhi's problems. But the Chinese leadership hardly cares for Indian sensitivities!
In the circumstances, I do not feel happy the way Gokhale has put even India's humanitarian dynamism of foreign policy in the reverse gear. He seems to ignore the Asian giant's historical track record and President Jinping Xi's Mao-like mindset. I agree with former foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal that "past record has shown that China hasn't changed one bit". Still, we have taken upon ourselves "the burden of reaching out to China". He further states that since "we seem to have made a gesture, we need to see whether China is willing to make some gesture of its own towards us and inject a note of realism in the border talks".
Well, China's economic and military power has grown tremendously since the 1962 conflict. It is riding high under the new strongman at the helm of affairs in Beijing. So, where is the scope for China's "realism" that our Foreign Secretary might be looking for ?

--Hari Jaisingh