'India follows strategic ambiguity, puts principles above narrow interests': Expert decodes Tibet policy

First Post

08-07-2025

India follows 'strategic ambiguity' on Tibet and the so-called Tibet Card has been carefully underutilised to preserve its potency and use it responsively when circumstances warrant, such as during high-stakes episodes like the 2017 Doklam standoff and the shift in India's diplomatic posture after border clashes in 2020, according to Eerishika Pankaj, the Director of Organisation for Research on China and Asia (ORCA). read more
Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama, center, presides over his 90th birthday celebrations at the Tsuglakhang temple in Dharamshala, India, Sunday, July 6, 2025.(AP Photo/Ashwini Bhatia)
As the stage has been set for a showdown between China and Tibetans over the Dalai Lama's reincarnation, all eyes are on India's approach to the situation.
India's Tibet policy has often been criticised as incoherent, but it is deliberately ambiguous to keep its potency, according to Eerishika Pankaj, a scholar of China and Tibet and the Director of the Organisation for Research on China and Asia (ORCA).
Even though India and China have not mentioned Tibet prominently in recent years in bilateral dealings, the issue remains central to bilateral tensions. For one, China's subjugation of Tibet is the basis of the India-China territorial conflict.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
China claims Tibet to be a part of China and further claims that India's Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh are parts of Tibet. This is the basis of China's claim on Ladakh and Arunachal that led to clashes as early as 2020 — 20 Indian soldiers were killed in first fatalities in decades in clashes in Galwan Valley of Ladakh.
Pankaj tells Firstpost that India has given up short-term, narrow interests to pursue a principles-based approach to the question of Tibet and the Dalai Lama.
Even as India does not have a hawkish policy, China has no room for acceptance for anything other than total compliance when it comes to Tibet. Following the Dalai Lama's announcement that the institution will continue after him, India issued a very balanced statement along expected lines, but China lashed out quickly and warned India against any support to the Dalai Lama.
'India follows strategic ambiguity, puts principles above narrow interests'
India's Tibet policy has been shaped over the decades and has been defined by principles and a long-term view.
India accepted the Dalai Lama in 1959 after he fled the Chinese crackdown in the wake of a popular uprising against Chinese occupation.
Since 1960, the Dalai Lama has lived in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, which has become the capital of world's Tibetan Buddhists. Dharamshala is also the seat of the Government-in-Exile of Tibet. Even as the scale of Indian official engagements with Tibetans and the Dalai Lama have fallen over the years, the fact that India continues to respectfully host the Dalai Lama, more than 100,000 of his followers, and the government-in-exile is tell-tale that of India's principled approach.
While critics say that India has not played the 'Tibet card' in the relationship with China appropriately, Pankaj says that it remains carefully underutilised as India deliberately refrained from overtly playing the Tibet Card in maximalist ways.
Pankaj tells Firstpost, 'This restraint is neither passive nor indicative of policy neglect. Instead, India has followed calibrated strategic ambiguity, a deliberate decision to preserve the card's potency and use it responsively when circumstances warrant, such as during high-stakes episodes like the 2017 Doklam standoff and the shift in India's diplomatic posture after border clashes in 2020.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
What is often overlooked is also the fact that India has not sought to turn Tibetans into pawns in greater strategic competition as great powers often do — the way the United States and Russia used third parties during the Cold War against each other.
Instead, by providing sanctuary to the Dalai Lama, hosting the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in Dharamshala, and supporting Tibetan religious and educational institutions across India, India has afforded the Tibetan community a degree of autonomy, dignity, and permanence unmatched by any other country, says Pankaj.
Even as the Tibet Card remains a valuable strategic asset, Pankaj says that India's conscious choice to not overtly weaponise their exile status underscores India's ethical commitment to safeguarding their spiritual and cultural heritage, rather than instrumentalising it for narrow geopolitical gains.
Pankaj further says, 'The fact that the Tibet Card has not been fully utilised does not diminish its relevance. Rather, it enhances its credibility. India has demonstrated that its support for Tibet is not transactional but principled. The challenge now is to ensure that this principled approach is underpinned by greater strategic clarity and international coordination — particularly as the succession struggle unfolds and the moral stakes intensify.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Like-minded countries need to come together on Tibet
One area where much work needs to be done regarding Tibet to take on China is the coming together of like-minded countries.
Tibet needs a dedicated forum of like-minded nations just like the Indo-Pacific region has Quad, says Pankaj.
In the Indo-Pacific, Quad goes well beyond projecting military strength to counter Chinese expansionist designs. The group — comprising India, the United States, Australia, and Japan— also partner with developing nations in the region on infrastructure, sustainability, healthcare, and other avenues to not allow China to gain foothold. In doing so, Quad works at breaking China's basis for outreach in the region.
Unlike the more institutionalised coordination seen on issues like the Indo-Pacific or critical supply chains, Tibet has suffered from rhetorical support unbacked by actionable coalitions and this absence has emboldened China's strategy of narrative warfare, particularly its historical claims and reinterpretations of Tibetan autonomy, says Pankaj.
'The failure to coalesce on Tibet has real consequences. It reinforces China's claim to exclusive authority over reincarnation politics, erodes the space for Tibetan cultural self-determination, and undercuts values-based diplomacy. Forming a Tibet-oriented coalition, or at least a platform for dialogue, among like-minded countries would serve as both a moral stance and a strategic signal,' Pankaj further says.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD