India’s Tibet policy under the BJP government has increasingly become a blatant provocation towards China, rather than a measured geopolitical strategy. By actively supporting Tibetan autonomy and engaging with the exiled Tibetan leadership, the Modi administration is seen as deliberately stoking tensions with Beijing. This aggressive stance is not merely a balancing act but a reckless gambit that risks destabilizing the region. The BJP’s approach, marked by nationalist fervor and a disregard for diplomatic prudence, undermines the potential for peaceful coexistence with China. Instead of fostering dialogue and cooperation, India’s actions under the BJP appear to be driven by an agenda of antagonism and confrontation and jeopardizing regional stability.
India’s Tibet policy has historically been a point of friction with China, but previous administrations have generally maintained a cautious approach. India recognized China’s sovereignty over Tibet in 1954 but provided refuge to the Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans fleeing Chinese repression in 1959. This created a delicate balance in India’s diplomatic relations with China. Successive Indian governments, irrespective of their political affiliations, adhered to the One China policy, acknowledging Tibet as an integral part of China while quietly supporting the cultural and religious autonomy of Tibetans. However, the BJP’s arrival in power marked a significant shift towards a more assertive policy, disrupting this balance and exacerbating tensions. The historical context highlights how the BJP’s current stance deviates from a long-standing tradition of cautious diplomacy.
The BJP government has taken several bold steps to support Tibetan autonomy, steps that are perceived as provocative by China. High-profile meetings between Indian officials and the Tibetan government-in-exile have become more frequent, and there have been increased public expressions of support for Tibetan rights. In 2018, the Modi administration allowed the Dalai Lama to visit the disputed border region of Arunachal Pradesh, infuriating Beijing. More recently, a delegation of American lawmakers visited Himachal Pradesh’s Dharamshala to meet the Dalai Lama, a move that further underscores India’s defiant stance. These actions signal a clear departure from the more restrained policies of previous Indian governments, reflecting a deliberate strategy to challenge China’s authority over Tibet. This aggressive stance raises questions about India’s true intentions and its willingness to risk regional stability for political gains.
While some may argue that the BJP’s actions are a strategic counterbalance to China’s growing regional influence, they increasingly appear to be deliberate provocations. India’s sudden change in its Tibet policy is sparking debate as many struggle to understand it. One key reason is the BJP’s desire to divert attention from its recent poor performance in the general elections by creating a sensational geopolitical shift. This new policy shift aims to overshadow the Indian Congress’s celebrations of a larger mandate in the 2024 election, while signaling Modi’s readiness to confront China, even at the risk of provoking friction. The BJP’s nationalist agenda and its leaders’ rhetoric suggest that their Tibet policy is driven more by a desire to assert Indian supremacy than by a well-considered geopolitical strategy. This approach, marked by a penchant for sensationalism and confrontation, highlights the BJP’s prioritization of domestic political gains over international diplomacy.
The BJP’s Tibet policy has strained Sino-Indian relations, leading to increased military tensions along their disputed border. The Doklam standoff in 2017 and the deadly clashes in the Galwan Valley in 2020 are direct consequences of heightened bilateral tensions. Neighboring countries and global powers view this aggressive stance with concern, fearing it could destabilize the entire region. Such provocations risk drawing India and China into a conflict that would have severe repercussions not just for them, but for global peace and security. India is strategically involving the US in its political arena, signaling its capability and willingness to confront China on behalf of American interests. This move also aims to leverage US support for India’s bid to secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. However, this strategy risks alienating China further and complicating efforts to resolve ongoing disputes, including those over Kashmir and the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
The BJP’s aggressive stance on Tibet is also rooted in domestic politics. By appealing to nationalist sentiments and Hindu supremacist ideals, the BJP bolsters its political base and diverts attention from domestic issues. This policy serves as a tool to consolidate power by rallying public support around a perceived external threat. The BJP’s alignment with the RSS, a right-wing Hindu nationalist organization, further drives its confrontational approach towards China. Under BJP leadership, India is re-examining longstanding foreign policy endeavors, settled agreements, and issues, marking a potentially risky trend. India had long accepted the One China policy, acknowledging Tibet as part of China since 1954. Recently, India has shown intentions to revisit the Kachatheevu island issue, which was settled and agreed upon with Sri Lanka. Moreover, there have been occasional discussions about revisiting the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan. These moves reflect a broader pattern of the BJP’s willingness to challenge established norms and agreements to serve its domestic political agenda, risking regional stability in the process.
Critics argue that the BJP’s Tibet policy is a reckless provocation that undermines regional stability. Rather than escalating tensions with China, India should pursue diplomatic channels to address its concerns. Engaging in dialogue and seeking peaceful solutions would be more effective in promoting Tibetan rights without endangering regional security. The BJP’s confrontational approach risks long-term consequences, including economic repercussions and the potential for military conflict. India’s recent assertive stance towards China is more about pressuring China to settle the border dispute at the LAC and to rethink its support for Pakistan on Kashmir, rather than a true capability to confront China directly. However, India’s approach risks irritating China and worsening the bilateral environment, especially given China’s stake in Kashmir and Ladakh. China views India’s shifting policies and occasional military ventures with the US through the Quad as provocative and has expressed displeasure over India’s recent policies on Kashmir. Chinese authorities have established extensive infrastructure in Tibet, including border villages, and have successfully recruited a significant number of Tibetan youth into the PLA. This recruitment strategy aims to leverage the physical resilience of Tibetan recruits to excel in the harsh mountainous terrain along the LAC, particularly against Indian security forces. The Indian military has responded with concern and is now urging US involvement to dissuade Tibetan youth from joining the PLA. However, this reactive approach lacks maturity as a strategic response.
India’s sudden shift in Tibet policy under BJP leadership has raised significant concerns, reflecting a desire to divert attention from domestic challenges and assert a more confrontational stance towards China. BJP’s approach risks unnecessary friction and complicates longstanding agreements, undermining efforts for peaceful coexistence in South Asia. It is crucial for India to refrain from risky foreign policy endeavors, avoid escalating tensions, and focus on constructive dialogue to promote regional peace and prosperity. A re-evaluation of this policy is essential to ensure a more balanced and prudent approach, fostering peaceful coexistence and cooperation with one of India’s most powerful neighbors. In a region fraught with historical tensions and competing national interests, India’s Tibet policy should prioritize stability and diplomacy over nationalist bravado and provocation.