India-China Tensions Escalate Over Dalai Lama Succession

With the Minister of External Affairs (MEA) to India ready to visit Beijing to hold high-profiled diplomatic talks, again the Indo-Sino relationship which is always experiencing strained relationship has got another problem which is in relation with the succession of the Dalai Lama. Overall, in their newest stances, Chinese authorities and propagandas have strongly condemned any Indian intervention in the succession, as an intentional deliberate provocation and a big impediment in normalized bilateral relationship. It is a subject on which China has been sensitive, and it is more being seen with geopolitical fever as India continues to reinvent itself into an active liaison to the Tibetan exile community and gives a hint that it is interested in having some say in the selection of the next Dalai Lama.

China Sees Succession Issue as a Political Weapon

To China, the process of succession, of Dalai Lama is nothing less than a contest of national sovereignty, rather than religious habits. Beijing has insisted that only it is permitted to recognize the Tibetan spiritual leaders as reincarnated namely at the instance that followed 14th Dalai Lama escape to India after failing to overthrow the Chinese rule in Tibet in 1959. Any foreign intervention in this process and especially that of India is considered as direct confrontation to the territory integrity and the Chinese rule of Tibet.
The state-controlled media run by the Chinese foreign ministry has been in sharp criticism of what they call India politicization of religious issues. Speaking out in favour of the freedom of Tibetan religious tradition and inclining that the new Dalai Lama can be born even outside of China even in India, at least, New Delhi, according to the perception of the Beijing leadership, is using religion as a weapon in disseminating its strategic interest. According to a recent editorial by Global Times: the succession of Dalai Lama is a red line to India and China-India friendship is a thorn with a growth of which China could not give up.

India’s Calculated Strategy or Moral Obligation?

In Indian terms, relationship with the Tibetan exile community is usually done in values of humanitarian interest, cultural similarity, and democracy. India has provided shelter to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile since about 60 years and granted them comparable freedom of speech and movement. New Delhi has a policy of not recognizing Tibet as an independent state and even though it has never failed to take care of Dalai Lama in carrying out his religious and cultural endeavours, at times, to the chagrin of the Chinese, especially Beijing.
Nonetheless, those who complain about the Indian strategy believe that it will be more tactical. By making the claim that it might play a part in the succession of the next Dalai Lama, India is telling China the following: that India will exercise the leverage that she wields over Tibet, which is quite non-confrontational, whenever relations sour. In this regard, India can be regarded the position taken on the question of the succession as a pressure strategy to balance the Chinese aggressiveness on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) as well as to remind of itself of the influence in the region due to the increasing Chinese influence in South Asia.

The Weaponization of Religion

The succession of the Dalai Lama is deep seated and a religious issue. But it has also turned into a place of geopolitical rivalry. The right invoked by China to control the reincarnation process has historical precedence based on the mandates during the Qing Dynasty together with the present law. The law dictated that reincarnation of Tibetan lamas had to be accepted by the state passed in 2007 by China. In contrast, the existing Dalai Lama has said that he might select his successor in ways that are not orthodox, or indeed that he did not have to die at all, creating a potential existence of two competing Dalai Lamas one chosen by the Tibetan Buddhists in exile and the other approved by Beijing.
China considers India to be a supporter of that former course, which means to it the backing of Tibetan separatism and a breach of the policy of so-called unity of China. To China, this is not just by symbolism. A Dalai Lama who adhered to the interests of India would offer moral authority to the Tibetan case and he would mobilize a possible renewal of the struggle within Tibet, which to this day is under a strong grip of Chinese security services. In this chain of events, Beijing regards Indian intervention, not as religious alliance, but as a ploy that is meant to foment instability.

Diplomatic Fallout and Strategic Risk

The Dalai Lama succession gives concern to be a diplomatic land mine as MEA prepares to negotiate in Beijing. Although this is denied by the officialdom on either side that the issue is on the agenda, both sides are acutely aware that it is supported by a further mistrust. The unclear position of India will enable the country to adopt a moral authority position and remain flexible about strategy choice. To China, this vagueness is unacceptable, they need straightforward assurances that India will not intrude in an issue it considers is internal.
The implication is broader too. As the U.S. and other Western countries also voiced their support to a Dalai Lama elected by Tibetans, China feels threatened in this area as well. The fact that India is part of such seen unity of opposition further increases the feeling of insecurity by Beijing. The Tibetan issue is likely to drag China into trouble it has been trying over the decades to put behind its back, at a time when it is already experiencing economic headwinds and being pushed back by neighbouring countries.
The existing China-India relations is unstable. Tensions between the sides are not resolved, the process of economic decoupling is in full swing, and even routine interaction is overshadowed by suspicion. To put this into perspective, the Dalai Lama succession argument is not as simple as a religious leadership, there is a struggle to determine the future face of Asia between two visions. It is a challenge to the sovereignty of China; it is a chance to show regional hegemony and support of democracy in India.
Should New Delhi decide to take this battle further, a balance will be needed to make sacrifice between the sentimental rewards and the actual danger of escalation. And should Beijing hold to unadulterated control then it plays into the hands of creating the said divisions it tries to contain. Either way, the lineage of spiritual leader has been turned into a political commitment, and this may determine the course of the most significant competition of Asia in future years.