Tibet

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's recent outburst that China poses a security challenge indicates a dangerous ambiguity in India’s China policy. The fact that Mukherjee has aired such a view after his intense and long diplomatic rapport with the leadership of that country needs to be noted seriously. It is not that China has not been a puzzle to Indian strategic thinkers. Even former Defence Minister George Fernandes considered China as India’s number one enemy, but his views were transformed after he paid an official visit to Beijing.

The two recent glorious achievements - the Olympics and spacewalk mission – seem to have transcended China to a new global height with wide implications for the world’s strategic balance. From all accounts, analysts suggest that China will not only survive but has also gained from the recent global financial meltdown.

In a disturbing sign, the Chinese seem to have brought up Sikkim and not Arunachal Pradesh back to the table during the recent visit of Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee to China. The belief was that China had implicitly recognised Indian sovereignty over Sikkim in 2003, and as such there was no dispute on the matter with China. China’s recognition of Sikkim was interpreted as a quid pro quo for India’s recognition of total Chinese sovereignty over Tibet in 2003.

The Indian government’s response to the ongoing protests in Tibet has been to merely state its “distress” about the situation and reaffirm its position that Tibet is an “internal” affair of China. New Delhi has assured Beijing that its position on the Tibet issue is “clear and consistent” and that this “would not change in the future.” The Indian position is based on its traditional opposition to separatist movements and to foreign intervention in support of such movements.

The streets of Lhasa have started to become quiet once again. It would be just a matter of weeks if not months before the Forbidden City once again invites tourists to the roof of the world to experience ‘Tibetan culture’, the preservation of which has been one of the central demands of the demonstrators. Tibet would soon show its ‘normalcy’ to the world, with the Olympic Torch passing through it.

Ongoing protests in Tibet, coinciding with the commemoration of the 49th anniversary of the 1959 March Uprising, was not unexpected given that China is only a few months away from the Beijing Olympics. The hosting of the Olympics is looked upon as China’s formal arrival as a great power and as an event that heralds its potential emergence as a superpower in the years to come. Consequently, the Chinese government has been well prepared to confront any untoward developments that could tarnish its image as a responsible global power.

Tibet has been an important and controversial issue for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since it came to power in 1949. The CCP “liberated” Tibet in 1950 and began its official rule in 1951. There have been two previous uprisings in Tibet, in 1959 and 1989. The latest protests have brought to the forefront the fact that all is not well in Tibet as claimed by the CCP. The policy followed by the CCP has been to increase the number of Han Chinese in Tibet, and thus more fully amalgamate the region into the mainland. All top and important official positions in Tibet are held by Han Chinese.

China's demand for the removal of two Indian Army bunkers from its outpost at Batang La near the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction in August 2007 can be seen from two angles. Firstly, the entire episode can be dismissed as a case of highhandedness of a few Chinese border officials who entered Indian territory inadvertently and came face to face with these Indian bunkers. Oblivious of where their actual position on the ground is, these officials then raised objections about the bunkers.

On April 19, 2007, the provincial Chinese court in Xinjiang sentenced Huseyin Celil, a Uyghur, to life imprisonment for taking part in "terrorist activities" and "plotting to split the country". The verdict of the People's Court of Urumchi states that Huseyin Celil will be deprived of his "political rights for life". This verdict has once again incensed human rights activists, who have begun a debate on Chinese intentions towards Uyghurs and Beijing's currently imprecise reportage on terrorism in Xinjiang.