
As Dalai Lama approaches 90, Tibetans weigh future without Buddhist leader
When the Dalai Lama turns 90 in July, the Buddhist monk, who for many exiled Tibetans personifies dreams of a free homeland, will ask if they want a successor.
For the charismatic Nobel Peace Prize-winning leader, his landmark birthday will be a time to encourage people to plan for an eventual future without him and address whether there will be another Dalai Lama.
The answer, at least according to his translator of nearly four decades, is clear: yes.
'I know for a fact that he has received petitions from across the Tibetan Buddhism communities, including some from inside Tibet,' said Thupten Jinpa, 66, a Buddhist scholar who helped produce the leader's latest book, 'Voice for the Voiceless'.
Jinpa believes the post, which he likens to a Buddhist 'papal institution' not only for Tibet but also encompassing the Himalayan regions of India, Bhutan and Nepal, as well as Mongolia and some Russian republics, will continue.
'My hope is that before his birthday, July 6, he will issue a final statement,' Jinpa said, speaking in India, where the Dalai Lama has been based since fleeing into exile in 1959.
'If my guess is right, and he says that the continuity of the institution will remain, that means then there will be a new Dalai Lama.'
Many exiled Tibetans fear China will name a successor to bolster control over a land it poured troops into in 1950.
'Almost unthinkable'
The current Dalai Lama was identified in 1936 when, aged two, he passed a test by pointing to objects that had belonged to the post's previous occupier.
He was hailed as the 14th reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, a role that stretches back more than 600 years.
'One constant in everybody's life has been the presence of the Dalai Lama,' said Jinpa, who fled Tibet with his parents as a baby, around the same time the Dalai Lama escaped.
If there is to be a 15th, the Dalai Lama has said he will 'leave clear written instructions' on what will happen after his death.
Jinpa, who trained as a monk before completing his doctorate at the University of Cambridge, said that a foundational principle of Buddhism was the contemplation of impermanence.
'Anything that comes into being will come to an end,' he said. 'Where there is birth, there will be death.'
But he said the Dalai Lama — who has said he wants to live until he is 113 — also wants followers to confront a future, someday, without him.
'The idea of a world without him is almost unthinkable,' Jinpa said. 'But that will happen, and His Holiness has himself been very explicit in making sure that people are thinking about it.'
'Symbol of a nation'
Jinpa said that plans for the future had long been in progress.
The Dalai Lama stepped down as his people's political head in 2011, passing the baton of secular power to a government chosen democratically by 130,000 Tibetans around the world.
'He has already prepared the formal political structure for carrying on the struggles of the Tibetan cause beyond his lifetime,' Jinpa said.
'But one of the things that he can't just transfer to an elected body… is the moral authority, and his status as the symbol of a nation, and a symbol of the aspiration of the Tibetan people,' he added.
'This is why the continuity of the Dalai Lama institution becomes important.'
China, which says Tibet is an integral part of the country, insists the Dalai Lama 'has no right to represent the Tibetan people'.
Jinpa said the Dalai Lama is only advocating for greater Tibetan autonomy.
'If we were asking for independence, it's a completely different thing,' he said.
'People's heart'
The Dalai Lama has already said that if there 'is a consensus that the Dalai Lama institution should continue', then the Office of the Dalai Lama — the Gaden Phodrang Trust in India's Himalayan hill town of McLeod Ganj — would hold the responsibility for the recognition of the next leader.
He has also made it clear that any successor would by necessity be 'born in the free world'.
In 1995, Beijing selected its own child as the Panchen Lama, another influential Tibetan religious figure, and detained a Dalai Lama-recognised six-year-old, described by rights groups as the world's youngest political prisoner.
'The Chinese will choose another 'Dalai Lama', that's for sure,' Jinpa said. 'It will be ridiculous, but they will do it.'
But he is confident that Tibetans will not acknowledge whoever Beijing selects.
'They can suppress, they can ban, they can force,' said Jinpa, noting that Beijing forbids the Dalai Lama's photograph in Tibet.
'But you can never change people's heart. What's in the heart belongs to the individual, and the loyalty will always be to this Dalai Lama, and whoever is going to be chosen through the traditional system.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Iran's ‘paper tiger' leadership will fall, Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi predicts
Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi said on Wednesday Iran's war with Israel had revealed the weakness of its 'paper tiger' leadership, predicting that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would be toppled in a peaceful revolution. She spoke a day after a shaky ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump took hold between Iran and Israel, ending a short but intense air war in which Israeli strikes seemingly targeted Iran's senior leadership at will. 'The people of Iran and the world saw that and realised what a paper tiger this administration is,' Ebadi said in an interview in London, where she has lived in self-imposed exile since 2009. Ebadi, a lawyer who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her work defending human rights, has been a staunch critic of the Shiite Muslim clerical establishment that has ruled Iran since 1979. Security officials said Khamenei, 86, went into hiding during the conflict, which wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military leadership and killed its leading nuclear scientists. 03:29 Netanyahu suggests killing Iran's supreme leader would end conflict Netanyahu suggests killing Iran's supreme leader would end conflict 'The people will not trust a leader who hides during times of war,' Ebadi said.


South China Morning Post
4 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Pakistan's Nobel Peace Prize nod to Trump stirs India concerns of US tilt to Islamabad
The nomination was formally filed on Saturday by Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, who praised Trump's role in helping mediate a ceasefire during last month's cross-border flare-up between India and Pakistan. Dar credited Trump with 'critical and pragmatic diplomacy' that averted wider conflict, describing the intervention as an act of 'stellar statesmanship'. The gesture followed a high-profile lunch hosted by Trump last week for General Asim Munir – the first time a Pakistani military leader has been received at the White House under Islamabad's civilian government – and has been widely interpreted as a symbolic endorsement of Trump's claim that he defused tensions between the two nuclear rivals. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi , who had declined Trump's invitation to visit the White House citing prior commitments, has remained publicly silent. US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a meeting at the White House in Washington on February 13. Modi has been silent on Pakistan's nomination of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Photo: Reuters Observers say, however, that eyebrows have been raised in Delhi over the optics of Trump extending such visible warmth to Munir, and the timing and framing of the Nobel nomination, which appears aimed at reinforcing Trump's long-standing narrative that his personal diplomacy helped prevent open conflict between India and Pakistan


AllAfrica
5 days ago
- AllAfrica
How India should read and react to Trump
On June 21, 2025, US President Donald Trump once again claimed that he had brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan—saying he had 'stopped the war' while invoking Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistan's Army Chief General Asim Munir, and lamenting that he still 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize.' This marked the 15th time Trump has made such a claim. India's position, however, remains unequivocal: PM Modi, in a June 18 phone call with Trump, reaffirmed that India had never accepted third-party mediation and that the ceasefire was the result of 'direct military-to-military communication between the Directors General of Military Operations,' initiated by Pakistan. India's Ministry of External Affairs and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri echoed this, stressing that India ' has not accepted, and will never accept, mediation ,' and that there was no discussion of a trade-for-ceasefire linkage. Trump's repetition of this narrative underscores a pattern of diplomatic overreach, factual distortion, and personal grandstanding in critical international matters. India should now stop responding to every statement Trump makes regarding this claim. Although he holds the office of the US President, it is important to recognize that he is also an impulsive and transactional leader who has openly admitted, 'I myself don't know what I will do next.' Taking his remarks at face value only amplifies them and makes New Delhi appear reactive to a personality who thrives on attention, disruption, and strategic ambiguity. Recently, Trump hosted Pakistan's Army Chief, General Asim Munir, at the White House and praised what he called Pakistan's 'very, very strong leadership.' Earlier, US CENTCOM Commander General Michael Kurilla described Pakistan as a 'phenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world,' citing its role in intelligence-led operations against ISIS-K. However, Trump's current overtures toward Pakistan must be viewed through a geopolitical lens, particularly in the context of the ongoing Israel–Iran conflict. Following Israel's strikes on Iran, the region remains volatile, and Trump appears to be seeking Pakistan's support—or at least its neutrality—given its long border with Iran and its past role in hosting US military infrastructure. Analysts suggest that if the conflict escalates, Pakistan could serve as a potential logistical or strategic partner for the United States. This should not be interpreted as a deep strategic realignment with Pakistan. During his first term, Trump openly accused Islamabad of 'lies and deceit' and suspended nearly US$2 billion in military aid, citing its duplicity in the War on Terror. In a widely noted tweet, Trump said: 'The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools… They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan… No more! ' Trump knows Pakistan well. He understands that it has never been a reliable security partner—receiving US aid while simultaneously sheltering the very Taliban forces that American troops were fighting in Afghanistan. Given this history, it is unlikely that he has had a genuine change of heart. Pakistan, in turn, is playing to Trump's well-known desire for admiration—offering flattery and even passing a parliamentary resolution nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump's repeated claims of mediating between India and Pakistan are a misrepresentation of facts. Even if India continues to issue categorical denials, he is likely to repeat the same narrative. His pattern of exaggeration—claiming he could end the Russia–Ukraine war in 24 hours or bring lasting peace to the Middle East—underscores that India is dealing with a deeply unpredictable and performative figure. It Is time for India to stop responding to Trump's provocations and instead focus on the broader strategic trajectory of the India–US relationship. New Delhi should engage consistently with the broader US foreign policy establishment—including career officials in the State Department, Congress, leading think tanks, and the strategic community—that recognizes India as central to a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific. Unlike the narrow, tactical US–Pakistan cooperation—mostly limited to military coordination between the Pentagon and Rawalpindi during crisis scenarios—the India–US partnership is broad-based, resilient, and multidimensional. It spans government-to-government, business-to-business, people-to-people, academic-to-academic, and civil society linkages. These diverse connections make the partnership stronger and more enduring. Even when one track faces challenges, others reinforce the foundation. Key initiatives like the US–India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET), launched in January 2023 by the national security advisors of both countries, provide a structured framework for cooperation in AI, quantum technologies, semiconductors, space, and defense innovation. The INDUS-X initiative, launched in June 2023, accelerates collaboration between defense startups. Meanwhile, the TRUST framework (Technology Resilience and Underpinning Sectors of Trust), introduced in policy discourse in 2023–24, focuses on building secure supply chains and trusted technology ecosystems. The evolving COMPACT initiative (Comprehensive Partnership for Advanced and Critical Technologies) reflects a long-term vision for co-development and co-production in critical tech and energy. In essence, the India–US relationship touches nearly every facet of human interaction—from innovation to education, energy to health, security to sustainability. As Prime Minister Modi aptly stated during his 2023 US visit, 'no corner of human enterprise is untouched by the partnership between our two great countries, which spans the seas to the stars. ' It is anchored in shared democratic values, institutional trust, and strategic convergence. Unlike the instrumental and transactional US–Pakistan dynamic, India–US ties are part of a long-term strategic alignment, not subject to the whims of personalities or the volatility of immediate crises. Whenever the US reaches out to Pakistan, Indian public discourse often interprets it as a zero-sum game—where any engagement with Islamabad is viewed as a loss for India. This mindset reflects outdated 'hyphenation' thinking, which wrongly assumes that India and Pakistan occupy equivalent roles in global politics. In reality, the two countries hold vastly different positions: India is a rising global power, with a $3.7 trillion economy and the world's third-largest military, while Pakistan remains a struggling regional actor—economically constrained, strategically dependent, and possessing niche utility in specific security scenarios. Trump's latest attempt to equate the two should be seen as a tactical move to secure Pakistan's cooperation in a specific context—most notably the Israel–Iran crisis—rather than a meaningful change in the U.S. strategic outlook. As Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Center has observed, 'This is likely a case of Trump being intrigued by the complexity and intractability of India–Pakistan relations and wanting to crack the code… but not necessarily reflecting US policy.' He further cautioned that the India–US relationship could suffer if it continues to be framed in Islamabad's shadow—a framing that Washington's broader strategic community has largely resisted. The appropriate response for New Delhi is not to react to every provocative statement, but to anchor the bilateral relationship in long-term shared interests—spanning strategic, technological, economic, academic, and civil-society domains. Washington's strategic elite understand this distinction. As Kugelman noted to Reuters, 'India is now a much closer US partner than Pakistan,' reflecting a solid alignment in Indo-Pacific strategy and global vision. India must clearly articulate its concerns to the US whenever military cooperation with Pakistan poses risks to its national security. Strategic clarity and proactive diplomatic engagement are essential. However, this must not translate into letting the broader India–US relationship be held hostage to Trump's unpredictable rhetoric. Instead, New Delhi should remain focused on strengthening cooperation across key domains—economic, technological, defense, academic, and civil society—regardless of momentary political noise. Trump should be seen for what he is: a transactional and often erratic actor, whose positions frequently shift based on political expediency or personal ego. The way forward for India is to deepen institutional engagement with enduring pillars of the US strategic community—Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon and influential think tanks. Let Trump say what he wants; the India–US partnership is anchored in long-term strategic convergence and shared democratic values—far too vital to be disrupted by one man's craving for attention. Dr Imran Khurshid is associate research fellow, International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi, and adjunct research fellow, The Peninsula Foundation