If negotiations take place, Tibetans should add India as a third polarity as in every case, India will remain Tibet’s neighbour
-by Claude Arpi for Firstpost
It was an interesting coincidence that the book—Imperial Games in Tibet—of former ambassador, Dilip Sinha, appeared on the market at the time the bipartisan Resolve Tibet Bill, titled Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act, was signed into an Act by the US President.
Dilip Sinha served earlier as the head of the United Nations delegation at a time when India had a seat in the Security Council; he was also posted as Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, where he was elected Vice President of the Human Rights Council and Vice Chairman of the South Centre.
Though never posted in China, his diplomatic experience gave him the background to study the ‘Great Game’ over Tibet, as he soon realised the deep injustice inflicted on the Dalai Lama and his people, especially after the Lhasa government took Tibet’s plight to the UN in November 1950.
After going deeper into the old records, Sinha concluded: “Tibet’s current plight is the result of a combination of miscalculation and misfortune. Its misfortune was that Britain and Russia left it in the Chinese empire, refusing to support its bid for independence even after the collapse of the Manchu dynasty. Had either of them annexed it at that time or earlier, Tibet would be a free country today. Instead, neither supported Tibet’s appeal to the UN, leaving it to India and the US. The absence of international support left Tibet at China’s mercy.”
The Resolve Tibet Bill
On February 15, 2024, the US House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted for the bipartisan Resolve Tibet Bill. The House’s approval of the bill seemed a major achievement for Tibetans, as it demonstrated strong bipartisan support for Tibet and the Tibetan cause. Among other things, the bill reaffirmed the US policy of supporting direct dialogue between the People’s Republic of China and representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama without any preconditions.
Under the present repressive regime in Beijing, it is a doubtful proposal, though it is a reminder to Beijing that the world has not forgotten the Land of Snows.
And as noted in an earlier column, the Act mentioned that the “claims made by officials of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party that Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times are historically inaccurate”. The Act rightly asserts that officials of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party “are historically inaccurate in claiming that Tibet has been part of China since ancient times”. This is exactly what Ambassador Sinha has demonstrated in his well-researched book.
Dilip Sinha’s argument is important because it analyses, in scholarly language, the ‘Great Game(s)’ which cost Tibet its independence in the 1950s; it has serious implications for the today-disputed Indo-Tibet border. Click here to read more.