The Dalai Lama says China under its President Xi Jinping “seems to be” returning to the “oppressive policies” of Mao Zedong’s era though more "surveillance and control", a remark that may not be taken too kindly by Beijing which considers him a "separatist" and says "he has not right to represent the people of Tibet"

In a new book titled ‘Voice for the Voiceless: Over Seven Decades of Struggle With China For My Land and My People’ the Dalai  Lama writes, “Judging by Xi’s last decade in office, when it comes to individual freedom and everyday life, China seems to be reverting to the oppressive policies of Mao’s time, but now enforced through state-of-the-art digital technologies of surveillance and control.”

He says China has market capitalism that is “tied to a Leninist obsession with state control.”

It is in this context that the question of the Dalai Lama’s succession becomes important. He turns 90 on July 6 and the inevitability of his mortality brings the Tibetan tradition of reincarnation of Dalai Lamas under a politically and culturally fraught focus.

He addresses that question thus: “Since the purpose of a reincarnation is to carry on the work of the predecessor, the new Dalai Lama will be born in the free world so that the traditional mission of the Dalai Lama – that is, to be the voice for universal compassion, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, and the symbol of Tibet embodying the aspirations of the Tibetan people – will continue.”

Beijing - and therefore Xi - by virtue of his being in complete control of all affairs in the country have long been known to be determined to pick their own successor to the Dalai Lama, a portent that is profoundly troubling for some six million Tibetans inside Tibet and over 100,000 in exile outside, mainly in India.

Beijing’s approach on the question of succession and reincarnation has been to run the Dalai Lama out of time and wait for the inevitable to happen to him. It is essentially a standoff between an individual’s mortality and a state’s often misguided sense of permanence. In Beijing's logic a new Dalai Lama handpicked by the Chinese state would be a powerful tool to strengthen its control over not just Tibet but Tibetan Buddhism as well.

In the book, the Dalai Lama reiterates his position on a negotiated settlement with China over the future of Tibet. At the same time though he also steadfastly sticks to his decades-long insistence on Tibet and Tibetans being a distinct identity separate from the Han Chinese. To that end he has throughout his exile in India since 1959 focused on preserving Tibet’s culture, language, ecology and religion. He makes a specific reference to those in the book as well.

“We Tibetans are the people who have traditionally inhabited the Tibetan plateau for millennia, and have every right to continue to be the custodians in our own homeland,” he writes.

He also counters the oft-repeated argument by the Chinese who cite Tibet’s overall economic development as the ultimate repudiation of any assertion by the Dalai Lama and his supporters over its autonomous ambitions.

“The issue of Tibet is not about the matter of economic development, which we acknowledge as having improved significantly since the economic liberalization of the People’s Republic of China. The issue is about a people’s need and right to exist their distinct language, culture, and religious heritage. Since the people inside Tibet have no freedom to speak out, it has fallen to me especially, since I came into exile in 1959, to be the voice of the voiceless,” he writes.

Timing of book

The book was released on March 11, six days before the 66th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s dramatic escape from Lhasa amid threat to his life from the Chinese army. “On March 17, 1959, in the darkness and frozen air of the night, I slipped out of the main gate of the Norbulingka Palace disguised and wearing a chuba, an everyday layman’s form of clothing,” he writes.

The Dalai Lama has long apprehended that Tibet’s identity as a unique civilization faces erasure and in recent years that prospect has only worsened as Beijing has tightened its stranglehold on Tibet.

The book’s timing in the runup to his 90th birthday and the 66th anniversary of his escape is unlikely to be lost on President Xi, particularly the Dalai Lama’s observation that China has returned to the oppressive policies of the Mao era. Considering that Mao continues to enjoy an exalted status in certain quarters in China, particularly among those who support Xi, the comparison, even a left-handed one, may be treated as a badge of honor by them.

Tibet was a 'blatant land grab'

The book does talk about how the 1950 invasion of Tibet by the Red Army was a case of “blatant land grab of an independent nation by force.” This is notwithstanding that in the aftermath China has cast the invasion as reclaiming what belonged to it historically and has sought to subsume Tibetan culture and identity in the majority Han identity. 

The Dalai Lama met Mao in September 1954 in Beijing and as he points out the latter was 61-years old to his 19. The 16-year-old Panchen Lama too joined the meeting. He describes Mao as “warm and welcoming.” After their hour-long interaction as the teenage Dalai Lama prepared to leave, Mao told him, “Your coming to Beijing is coming to your own home. Whenever you come to Beijing, you can call on me….Don’t be shy; if you need anything, just tell me directly.”

The Dalai Lama went on an arranged tour of Chinese cities. He saw firsthand for the first time how Marxist economic theory worked in real terms. “The idea of taking care of the less privileged people, of the working class, is wonderful. To oppose all exploitation, and strive for a society without national boundaries—these are excellent ideas,” he writes.

In fact, he says he used to describe himself as “half-Buddhist” and “half-Marxist”, a view that changed over the years on discovering that Marxism lacks compassion. In the case of China, in the Dalai Lama’s judgment, Marxism has morphed into Leninism, “with state control of the people by the (Communist) Party as the primary objective.”

(The writer is a Chicago-based journalist, writer, filmmaker and commentator. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at mcsix@outlook.com)