Whatever the compulsions or machinations behind his unexpected arrival, there is little doubt that young Urgyen Trinley Dorje has challenged the uneasy status quo between his country and China, and reopened the question of Tibet in the eyes of the international community. Even as India cautiously treads the diplomatic waters, skirting the issue of asylum, it cannot fail to recognise that it has been presented with a powerful political fait accompli, and perhaps also with a promising opportunity.
In the new situation, New Delhi would do well not to be bound by shibboleths of the past and to revise its Tibet policy (if any) in the light of its own needs and security perceptions. The situation will require close monitoring at ground level; haste is neither necessary nor desirable. The Jawaharlal Nehru-type of one-sided unilateral concessions to China must, however, be avoided at all costs. The Tibetans are a distinct ethnic community with rich religio-cultural traditions, a sense of affinity with India, and separateness from mainland China. Tibet was the buffer between India and its nuclear neighbour, and Nehru’s wisdom in blessing its annexation and bringing the Chinese border up to our very doorstep is yet another painful legacy he has left us to grapple with.
Of course, it is too soon to come to a conclusion about the Karmapa’s motives in coming here. However, since the debate about his presence almost exclusively focuses upon the issue of political asylum, some points are in order. To begin with, his arrival has intangibly but definitively altered the precarious status quo between Tibet, China, India, and perhaps even the United States. A decision by India to ask him to leave (to return to Tibet or seek a new home elsewhere), cannot restore the old status quo between Delhi and Beijing.
Such a move will create a new status quo. This cannot be to our advantage, as it would deny us any leverage in a number of issues that vex our relationship with China. Indian advocates of a rapprochement with Beijing in the wake of Pakistan’s renewed belligerence in Kashmir would appreciate that a measured response to Beijing’s own concerns about Islamic fundamentalism will give better returns than weak-kneed-capitulation at the first hint of pressure.
Within the country as well, the Government will need to be sympathetic to other aspects of the issue, such as the general dismay over the exchange of militants for hostages in Kandahar. I rank among the few who felt this was the only possible solution to the crisis in the overall politico-diplomatic circumstances, as the Taliban had maneuvered the Vajpayee Government into a corner by forcing the hijackers to drop two demands as “un-Islamic” and presenting the third as non-negotiable. However, the post-hijack scenario, with the hijackers walking off scot-free to Pakistan, has left Indians smarting with humiliation. Any show of sensitivity to Chinese discomfort about the Karmapa’s presence, without reciprocal respect for India’s concerns vis-à-vis the border, the status of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, or claim over PoK, will undermine confidence in the Vajpayee Government’s ability to serve the national interest.
There is another aspect. As head of the Karma Kagyu (Black Hat) sect of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism, the 17th Karmapa is no small fry. This sect is deeply mystical, rich and influential, with supporters and sympathizers all over the world. With the present Dalai Lama having hinted that the institution of Dalai Lama would end with him, the Karma Kagyu sect, with a Karmapa endorsed by the Dalai Lama and Communist China, will doubtless gain ascendancy and importance in the region. In these circumstances, the Karmapa’s presence in India would unite rather than divide the Tibetan resistance to Chinese presence in that country. Provided, of course, that the young monk is no Chinese tool, he could be an important card against Beijing, particularly with the Americans taking such a keen interest in his plans. It should be kept in mind that the China-installed Panchen Lama enjoys little credibility, and Beijing cannot easily derecognize the Karmapa after receiving him with official pomp and ceremony not long ago.
The crux of the issue of course, is how and why the Karmapa arrived, and the Dalai Lama’s attitude towards him. There is a story behind the escape; much of the speculation veers around Chinese complicity or CIA ingenuity. Eyebrows have been raised over the timing of his arrival. New Delhi was engaged in deliberations with rival Karma Kagyu groups over the true claimant to the symbolic Black Hat (said to be woven from the hair of female deities), presently in Sikkim’s Rumtek Monastery. Some commentators feel that a leak from the Government side provoked China to send him here, but this may be a needless suspicion. Since both Kagyu factions were deliberating with the Government, and there is considerable mobility of Tibetans to and from India, the interested faction could easily have tipped off the Karmapa.
Interestingly, the monumental Palpung monastery being constructed by the Kagyu sect in the penumbra of McLeodganj is nearing completion, and will want a master. This prompts me to focus on the role of the Dalai Lama himself. His Holiness has always conducted himself with grace, modesty, and discretion and avoided self-aggrandizement. But given his learning and immersion in spiritual pursuits, it is not unlikely that he has deeper mystical knowledge and insights. This, rather than a mundane desire to mend fences with China, could well be the true reason for his otherwise inexplicable decision to recognise the Chinese-anointed Urgyen Trinley Dorje as 17th Karmapa.
I may be unduly suspicious, but I find it significant that when the Dalai Lama’s staff first broke the news of the young monk’s arrival to a startled nation, it took great care to project the “escape” as entirely conceived and executed from the confines of the Tsurphu Monastery. Much was made of the small band’s escape on foot in ankle-deep snow, avoiding guides and guards, to Nepal, and thence to India. Special care was taken to mention that the Dalai Lama’s office in Nepal, which facilitates the travel arrangements of Tibetans seeking refuge in India, had no role in the adventure. All this was said even before anyone had begun to speculate on the Karmapa’s mode of transport and route to India. I think the lamas protested too much.
Then there is the alacrity with which the Dalai Lama visited the Karmapa on the very day of his arrival – perhaps he wished to personally verify that it was indeed his candidate who had arrived, and that all had gone well. The Dalai Lama has since received the young monk even while in retreat, surely an abnormal courtesy for someone who does not even belong to his sect. Can it be that he sees him as his successor spiritual-temporal leader, behind whom the Tibetan community can unite, and Beijing cannot discredit? Can this be the reason why the controversial Tai Situ Rimpoche, who enjoyed equal access to the Dalai Lama and Beijing, conceived the Palpung Monastery – as a place where a China-recognised Karmapa will be safer than, say, at Rumtek? At the moment, no one’s talking. But time is on New Delhi’s side. The Americans may have ditched us in Kandahar, but they need us here. If we don’t develop cold feet, we may find us a foothold on the roof of the world.
Pioneer, 18 January 2000