India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Subcontinent » 

Olympic Torch Relay launched in Beijing, Indian envoy also attends ceremony

	April 07, 2008

Further unrest in Tibet



The Olympic Torch Relay was launched in Beijing on March 31 morning amidst extremely tight security that permitted just about 5,000 carefully selected people to witness it at Tiananmen Square. Chinese President Hu Jintao formally lit a cauldron after a colourful ceremony participated by dancers and performers from different parts of the country. Hours before, a special chartered Air China plane carried the flame from Greece. Hu then handed the torch to an athlete who ran around the Tiananmen Rostrum. The ceremony was attended by most of the important leaders of the Communist Party of China, 342 representatives of foreign media and diplomats of foreign countries, including India’s Ambassador to China, Nirupama Rao.



China has begun to carry out pre-emptive arrests and increased surveillance on a range of dissident groups. Security checks by police sparked further unrest in Lhasa on March 30.



The flame then left for the Kazakh city of Almaty on April 1, the first stop in its global tour of 135 cities, including New Delhi. The relay will cover 137 km. before the flame returns to Beijing and enters the National Stadium on August 8 for the opening ceremony. The Chinese authorities have said they would ensure that the torch rally is not disturbed during its journey through 100 countries over the next 130 days.



Calls for boycott of Games

Across the globe demands were made last week that world leaders should refuse to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games to protest against the Chinese repression of Tibetans. German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that she would not attend the Olympic Games which got underway on Aug. 8. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the first European leader to think loudly on a boycott of the opening ceremony to protest China’s handling of the unrest in Tibet, left open the possibility that he might not attend. In the US, House Representative, Speaker Nancy Pelosi who recently irked China with her visit to India and her meeting with the Dalai Lama at Dharamsala where she made a fiery speech, urged President Bush to consider boycotting the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. In a radio interview she said, she believed, President Bush would take a decision depending on what other Heads of State do. In New Delhi, former Defence Minister George Fernandez urged the Indian Government to boycott the Games.



Security precautions in New Delhi; Torch route curtailed

The Olympic Torch will reach New Delhi on April 17. The torch bearers in India will include actor Aamir Khan, Magasaysay Award winner and former IPS Officer Kiran Bedi and environmentalists Narayan Hegde and V. Subhash Chandra Reddy. India’s footballer Bhaichung Bhutia pulled out of the torch relay citing personal reasons. Tibetan organisations in India appealed to Aamir Khan and others not to participate in the relay. Aamir Khan said he would carry the torch not for China but with a prayer for Tibet.



After concerns of security expressed by China and a review of security arrangements by Home Secretary Madhukar Gupta, the route of the torch relay has been reduced from nine km to two km. The route will be a two km of more secure and traffic management– friendly stretch of Rajpath extending from Vijay Chowk to India Gate. India Gate C- Hexagon would be closed to traffic for the occasion. Arrangements, security agencies said would be on a par with those for the Republic Day parade. Gupta chaired a meeting of senior officials of the Home Ministry on March 31. The Delhi Police Commissioner, senior officials of the Delhi Government and representatives of the Indian Olympic Association attended the meeting. They discussed measures to ensure safety of the Olympic Torch in the light of the apprehensions expressed by the Chinese Embassy after Tibetan protesters managed to defy the security arrangement and stormed the embassy in New Delhi. The National Security Advisor, M.K. Narayanan, also took stock of the overall situation at a high level meeting on April 3 where he was briefed about all the measures including reducing the relay route, being taken to ensure the success of the event.



The review of India’s arrangements by Narayanan himself assumes significance in view of Beijing’s stand on the entire issue when Chinese Ambassador Zhang Yan reportedly threatened India with skipping the New Delhi leg of the relay during his meeting with Union Home Minister, Shiv Shankar Patil last month. Narayanan spoke to his counterpart in China, Dai Bingguo, and assured him that proper arrangements would be made to ensure safe passage of the Olympic flame through India. Bingguo briefed Narayanan on “violent crimes” in Lhasa and explained China’s stand and concerns over the Tibet issue, according to the State-run Xinhua news

agency.



Pranab’s phone call to Chinese Foreign Minister

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee rang up Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on April 1 and assured him that India would ensure the safe passage of the Olympic Torch and would not permit any anti-Chinese activity by Tibetans in India. Mukherjee reiterated India’s stand that it considered the Tibetan Autonomous Region as part of China and the Dalai Lama as only a religious and spiritual leader. Yang briefed Mukherjee on the situation in Tibet and said China appreciated the steps taken by India to ensure the safety and security of Chinese diplomats and consular establishments and Chinese citizens in India. He said he was confident that the passage of the Olympic Torch through India would be smooth.



The initiative of Mukherjee to reassure Yang that New Delhi would not encourage any political activity inimical to China’s interests is seen as an attempt by New Delhi to play along with Beijing’s paranoia over the Tibetan protest in India. While the Chinese are indeed in an international tight spot over the Tibet and human rights issues and their potential to rob the Beijing Olympics of its sheen, India has made it more than apparent that it will not join the global condemnation of the Chinese. Ever since violence erupted in Lhasa and spread to other parts of China, New Delhi has been extremely cautious in its approach to the Tibet issue in order not to allow a “sense of injury” to creep into bilateral relations.



After his telephonic conversation with Yang, Mukherjee sent out a strong message, meant more for Beijing than the Dalai Lama, asking the Tibetan spiritual leader to refrain from indulging in political activity that would hurt India’s relations with China. Speaking in Murshidabad (West Bengal) on April 1, he said the Dalai Lama is a religious leader. India will render him all hospitality as he is a respectable guest. He will have full freedom to preach religion but he cannot conduct any political activity in this country that may lead to negative impact on India-China relations, Mukherjee said.



Chinese Ambassador to India Zhang Yan also took on board the Opposition when he called on BJP President Rajnath Singh at his residence on April 2 to appraise him of Beijing’s perception in the troubled Tibetan region. Zhang has meanwhile refuted reports of harsh treatment to India’s envoy in Beijing, Nirupama Rao, who was allegedly to call to the Foreign Office at the dead of the night to be told of China’s concern about the Tibetan refugees’ protest some of which turned violent in New Delhi and other parts of the country. Although Zhang did not deny that she was summoned to the Foreign Ministry at 2 a.m., he said what has been put out in media reports about the treatment of Ms. Rao was not correct.





Dalai Lama’s supporters deny suicide squads’ report

These developments come even as the war of words between China and the Dalai Lama escalated. China has repeatedly accused the Tibetan spiritual leader of masterminding the violence in Lhasa. It has also accused him of spreading lies. Rejecting the Dalai Lama’s comments that Chinese soldiers dressed up as Tibetan monks incited violence in Lhasa, China said on April 1 it showed the Dalai Lama’s guilty conscience and accused him of trying to pass the buck using rumours and cheating. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu said the Dalai Lama’s citing of hearsay rumours cannot change the truth of the incidents. It only shows the sense of guilty conscience in his deep heart.



In an apparent response to rising international calls for Beijing to negotiate with the Dalai Lama, the Chinese State media has accused him of closing the doors on talks on Tibet’s future. In a lengthy article, the Xinhua news agency on Sunday cited past actions and statements of the 72-year-old Tibetan leader that it said contradicted or undermined his calls for negotiations. The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said the channels for dialogue with the Dalai Lama are always open but he should first use his influence to stop violence in Tibet . “As long as the Dalai Lama abandons the claim for Tibet’s independence,’ especially uses his influence to stop the violence in Tibet, and recognizes both Tibet and Taiwan as inseparable parts of China, the Chinese Government is to continue resuming dialogues with him,” Wen was quoted as saying by the Xinhua news agency. Wen’s comments are seen as an apparent softening of China’s stand on the Tibetan spiritual leader.



China has meanwhile issued a confession by a monk linking the Lhasa violence to the Dalai Lama. The state-run Xinhua news agency said on March 31 that the police has in its possession a written confession by a monk who had received orders from supporters of the Dalai Lama to instigate demonstrations. The Chinese Government, however, has not held a news conference to identify the monk or explain the circumstances of the confession.



China has also accused the Tibetan independent forces of planning to use “suicide squads” to carry out bloody attacks, an allegation immediately denied by supporters of the Dalai Lama. Public Security Bureau spokesman Wu Heping said in Beijing, the security agencies have knowledge that the next plan of the Tibetan independent forces is to organize “suicide squads” to launch violent attacks. The US has rejected China’s charge that the Dalai Lama would back the suicide attacks, calling him a man of peace. The self proclaimed Tibetan Government in- exile has also quickly denied the charge. “Prime Minister” Samdhong Rinpoche said Tibetan exiles are 100 per cent committed to non-violence and there is no question of suicide attacks. “But we fear that Chinese might masquerade as Tibetans and plan such attacks to give bad publicity to Tibetans.”



The State media said in Beijing on April 3 that more than 1000 people have either been caught by police or have turned themselves after deadly unrest in Tibetan capital Lhasa last month. The deputy chief of the Lhasa Communist party said while police arrested over 800 “criminals” since the violent March 14 unrest in the city, more than 280 had turned themselves up. Trials will be carried out before May 1 . Exiled Tibetan leaders say 135 to 140 people died in the Chinese crackdown on the demonstrations. China insists that it has acted with restraint and killed one person while blaming Tibetan rioters for the death of 20 people. In another snub to its critics, a Chinese court has sentenced one of the country’s dissidents, Hu Jia, to three and a half years in jail. It seems that Beijing would not care much about stringing criticism from western human rights groups which have been campaigning in favour of Hu Jia.





Uighur Muslims protest after Tibet

The Chinese are meanwhile grappling with ethnic unrest on a second front. In the north western region of Xinjiang Uighur Muslims protested against Chinese rule even as Tibetans rioted last month. One Uighur demonstration which appeared to have been quickly suppressed took place in Khotan town on March 23. At the same time China was deploying 1,000 security personnel across a broad swath of its south west to put down Tibetan unrest. The local Government of Hetian confirmed the stir but made no mention of the charge of the minority Uighur people who were became angry over the death of a local businessman in police custody. The Hetian Government only said in its website that a small number of elements tried to incite “splitism created disturbances in the market places and even trick the masses into an uprising.” It said the instigators did not succeed in their ploy. In a statement the Chinese authorities accused the Muslims there of trying to start a rebellion. The incident came close on the heels of China saying last month that a 19-year-old woman suspect, a Uygur ethnic, had confessed to her role in the foiled terrorist plot to crash a Beijing-bound passenger aircraft from Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang. Most of the people in Xinjiang, which borders Afghanistan and Central Asia, are Muslim Turkic-speaking Uighurs, many of whom bridle at what they say have been 60 years of repressive Communist Chinese rule.



India kow-tows to China

Critics of India’s foreign policy say after ditching Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar to appease the military regime of Myanmar, New Delhi is showing apathy to the cause of Tibetans to please China. Both Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama represent the power of non-violence. They represent the increasing frayed hope of the self-suffering against the brute force. Both the movements in Myanmar and Tibet are led by monks and monasteries. They both are asserting that a life of religion is not that of ascetic contemplation and withdrawal only. The ascetic duty demands that they fight for truth not only in theological debates, but in life, in the streets and bylanes and cities. For this reason alone, the response that was expected from India and the world community was, however, disappointing.



As remarked by Kanwal Sibal, former Foreign Secretary, China’s occupation and claims to sizeable chunks of India’s territory, its military resources to back its position, its previous support of insurgencies in India which it can revive again, its support to Pakistan – all these present political and military challenges to India and limit its choice to have a confrontation with China on issues such as Tibetan exiles and their leadership. But, Sibal says, while there is every reason to be prudent in dealing with China, there is little reason to imprudently give up the few options we have in the unrealistic hope of earning its goodwill. There is a difference between being cautious and being weak. By being cautious problems are avoided; by being weak, problems are actually invited. The top Chinese leadership has the impression that we are cowards and run away from a confrontation which explains the Chinese behaviour, says Kanwal Sibal. He says, if China calculates that it can publicly lay claims to Arunachal Pradesh and endlessly delay any real progress in border discussions without seriously affecting bilateral ties, why cannot India reason similarly with regard to issues sensitive to the Chinese? China has created political space for it to not only disregard but also actually offend deep Indian sensibilities on the territorial and other questions without compromising improved relations with India. India is afraid of creating similar space for itself that will allow it to reach out to the Dalai Lama politically and allow the Tibetans to stage peaceful demonstrations in India without affecting India’s friendly ties with China. Sibal says, if the Chinese believe their position on Arunachal Pradesh is not subject to the test of relationship, let us assume democratic India granting the right of peaceful protest to the Tibetans is not incompatible with India’s desire to improve relations with China. The understanding on political activity by the Dalai Lama was not between India and China. It was between the Dalai Lama and India. True, by including this in its joint documents with China, India has made itself answerable to China. But, with China – only to mention recent cases – not adhering to its agreement with India on delineating the Line of Actual Control and still not showing Sikkim as part of India in its official maps, India should not feel overburdened by one-sided obligations towards it, observes Sibal. The Chinese want India to stop demonstrations in Tibet. The Government in New Delhi is yielding to that pressure by allowing the Chinese Ambassador high-level political access. New Delhi gave him an opportunity to denounce the Dalai Lama on its face at such high level; more so in the wake of the discourtesy shown to India’s Ambassador in Beijing with the motive of browbeating India politically.



Tibet’s status – historical truth

The recent protests by Tibetans and China’s predictable reaction to them have once again brought the question of Tibet into the international limelight. There are heated discussions on ethnic violence, human rights abuses, brutal state policies, China’s moral authority to hold the Olympics, the Dalai Lama’s authority, good Chinese/ bad Tibetans (within China) or bad Chinese/ good Tibetans (elsewhere). However, at the back of all these lies the essentially political question of what is Tibet’s status vis-à-vis China. A critical study of Tibet’s modern history complicates any Tibetan claims to independence but it also challenges Chinese assertion of sovereignty. When taking advantage of civil wars within China, Tibetans threw out Chinese officials and troops and Tibet became de facto independent in 1913-1949, it was not recognized by anyone as an independent state. The British who were in the best position to do so (and hence follow the Russian precedent of recognizing Outer Mongolia as an independent Mongolia) consciously discouraged any Tibetan attempt to gain international recognition. A close study of British colonial documents reveals that while an autonomous Tibet was useful as a buffer state to secure British India’s northern frontiers, there was no wish to encourage Tibetan independence since it would anger the Chinese elite, upset other European powers, and not serve any strategic interest. Russia with whom Britain played the “great game” in Central Asia at the start of the century became an ally against rising Germany. Thus, de jure Chinese claims of political supremacy went unchallenged at the only time in modern period when Tibet was practically independent (1913-1949). The blame lies as much with their British ‘friends’ as the Tibetans’ own inability to modernize and recognize that the rules of the geopolitical game were rapidly changing. China thus has historical and legal claims over Tibet that went uncontested even when Tibetans were in the best position to do so. At the same time, the political control was never an absolute one before 1951.



The door for dialogue and genuine compromise between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama was open briefly in the 1900s. The two sides held secret talks in Beijing in 1982 and 1984. At the time however, the Dalai Lama was less clear than what he states today on the issue of how far he was willing to accept Chinese rule over Tibet. The exiles repeatedly insisted that any solution must entail the governance of Tibet under a totally different political system than what the rest of China had. This would mean transforming the region into a self governing democratic entity, something that was patently unacceptable to Beijing. When in 1989 the Chinese authorities invited the Dalai Lama to participate in a religious ceremony in an effort to re-start stalled talks, the exiled leader refused. He chose instead to appeal to the West to put pressure on China to accede to his demands. For Beijing this move branded the Dalai Lama as a chronically unreliable negotiator. Since then the Chinese leadership’s preferred approach is to wait for the monk’s passing. The idea is that any successor of the current Dalai Lama is unlikely to inspire similar veneration in Tibetans and would thus lack the clout enjoyed by the current leader. Thus while Chinese leaders have repeatedly, in recent weeks, stated that they are open to talks with the Dalai Lama, they reiterate the caveat that he must give up his demand for independence. The Dalai Lama in turn has repeatedly insisted that he has no such claim. The Chinese respond by pointing to the riots in Lhasa and hence the Dalai Lama’s “obvious insincerity”. And so on it goes, in circles. Even if the Government persuades itself to attempt a compromise with the exiled leader, its room for manoeuvre is slim given the way the public views the situation. Any change in Beijing’s position, including talks with the Dalai Lama, would appear as bowing to foreign pressure and failing to respond firmly to violence. In 1989 the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize. However, beyond symbolic gains for his cause, his strategy of appealing to the West for support failed to make China compromise on Tibet. In fact, it precipitated a more hardline policy on the issue, which persists till today. With the recent protests and the upcoming Olympic Games, the Dalai Lama and Tibet are once again in the international limelight. However, given the Chinese reaction there is little cause to believe that any fundamental shift in Tibet’s situation will be precipitated.