(TibetanReview.net, Jul01’24) – As the Dalai Lama reincarnation increasingly dominates the international discourse on Tibet, and as the exile Tibetan spiritual leader himself nears his designated approximate time for making his decision on the issue, China has sought to drive home the point that this matter falls withing the rubric of its “natural” authority, speaking through its state employed academics.
Beijing has “natural” authority in identifying the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, the scmp.com Jun 30 cited state-backed analysts as saying at a Beijing forum Jun 26.
The justifications of the analysts, tasked by the party leadership to “construct narratives” to support its decisions on the matter, range from the outlandish to outright falsehood, resting entirely on the fact that China controls Tibet. The atheist-lack of legitimacy of the Communist Party of China-state to take decision on such a profoundly religious matter is very obviously ignored.
Laxianjia, deputy director of the Institute of Religious Studies at the China Tibetology Research Centre (CTRC), has referred to Beijing’s measures related to the “reincarnation of living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism”, passed in 2007.
“Although the Dalai Lama is currently outside China, his reincarnation is still part of the Gelug tradition and under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government, as most temples are located within China,” Laxianjia has said, referring to the dominant school of Tibetan Buddhism to which he belongs.
“Therefore, it is only natural that the Chinese government would implement [the 2007] system and apply these principles to ensure control over Tibetan Buddhism.”
Laxianjia has also claimed that his field research showed that the general public in Tibet were not as reverential towards the 14th Dalai Lama as they had “become more aware of his political identity and his political moves abroad”, though they did acknowledge that his 13 predecessors had made significant contributions to the development of Tibetan Buddhism.
While the Dalai Lama has constantly sought to establish contact with Beijing towards the resolution of the issue of Tibet, seeking a negotiated genuine autonomy for his homeland, China’s so-called experts on Tibet have blamed him for the lack of communication with Beijing.
“There has been no progress in this regard for many years because the Dalai Lama himself has not understood or implemented the central government’s requirements. Instead, he seeks to achieve Tibetan independence, semi-independence, or de facto independence through negotiations,” Zhang Shigao, director of the Institute for Contemporary Tibetan Studies at CTRC (China Tibetology Research Centre) has said.
The report said the Jun 26 forum, which aimed to address 65 years of reforms in Tibet, was attended by several Chinese and international media outlets.
The forum has sought to justify China’s use of the name “Xizang” for Tibet, noting that the latter was being “wrongly” applied to include historical Tibetan territories that are now outside Tibet Autonomous Region.
A slew of Tibet policy bills passed by the United States in recent years had referred to the area as “Greater Tibet”, a term long advocated by the 14th Dalai Lama, and Beijing made the change to avoid any misunderstanding, Liang has maintained.
Truth be told, the term “Greater Tibet” does not occur in any of the Tibet policy bills passed by the US. Exile Tibetans use the name “Tibet” to refer to the historically three traditional provinces of Tibet, around half of which now make up the Qinghai Province or parts of the Chinese provinces of Gansu, Yunnan and Sichuan.