Why Dalai Lama's succession is Bharat's strategic imperative and moral duty

First Post

3 days ago

With the Dalai Lama turning 90, the stakes could not be higher. A manipulated succession would permanently compromise the Tibetan movement and also hurt Bharat's strategic interest read more
Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama attends an event celebrating his 90th birthday according to a Tibetan calendar at the Tsuglakhang temple in Dharamshala, India, Monday, June 30, 2025, ahead of his birthday according to the Gregorian calendar on July 6. AP
A nation's foreign policy is ultimately judged by how well it serves its national interest. History bears testimony that when a country ignores this principle, disaster follows. India's own experience with Jawaharlal Nehru's foreign policy stands as a cautionary tale. Nehru's approach, often idealistic and detached from hard realities, led to a series of strategic blunders—the most glaring being his miscalculation on Tibet and China.
However, pursuing national interest does not mean abandoning ethics or dharma. As history also shows, the absence of moral anchors often boomerangs. The amoral opportunism of US foreign policy in the 1970s and 1980s—whether it was opening the doors to Communist China that eventually facilitated China's rise or fuelling fundamentalism in Afghanistan to counter the Soviet Union that ended in the horrors of 9/11—offers sobering lessons.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
For Bharat, a civilisational state steeped in dharmic consciousness, foreign policy has always been more than transactional. The Bharatiya outlook traditionally views the world not through the narrow prism of power blocs but through the wider lens of dharma. Nehru's concept of non-alignment stemmed from this civilisational discomfort with power-centric alliances. Unfortunately, while he refused to align with any bloc, he also failed to align with all—a more authentic Bharatiya approach that balances relationships based on dharmic considerations.
Bharatiya statecraft has never been naive about the ways of the world. The Mahabharata makes it abundantly clear when it quotes Bhishma as exhorting Yudhishthira: 'If the one who is fighting under deceit, one must fight back using deceit.' This understanding should guide a traditionally dharmic state like Bharat in dealing with adharmic states such as Pakistan and communist China. (There's a need to differentiate communist China from civilisational China, which was much closer to Bharat in ideas and outlook.)
Instead, Nehru chose to blind himself to China's expansionist ambitions. His most tragic misstep came when he deliberately looked the other way when Mao's troops invaded Tibet in 1950. The Chinese invasion of Tibet was not just a cataclysmic event for the Tibetans but also a major geostrategic setback for Bharat. While Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's opposition to Nehru's Tibet policy is well documented, especially his letter to the then prime minister in December 1950, where he exhorted him to be more watchful of China's imperialistic tendencies, Rajendra Prasad too wrote a letter on November 18, 1962, to Sri Prakasa, highlighting the moral failings of the Nehruvian foreign policy.
Prasad writes, '…in the matter of Tibet, we acted not only un-chivalrously but even against our own interest in not maintaining the position of a buffer state for it and thus exposing a frontier of about 2,500 miles to the Chinese except for a small strip belonging to Nepal. I have very strong feelings about it. I feel that the blood of Tibet is on our head, and we must do prayashchit, which is already being forced on us. Let us hope that we shall be successful. But the Prime Minister does not like the name of Tibet to be mentioned even now and regards any mention of its liberation as 'manifest nonsense'. No one suggests that we should march our armies into Tibet. But is there anything wrong in wishing well of Tibet and treating it as a sovereign country under the suzerainty of China?'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Today, on July 6, 2025, as the Dalai Lama celebrates his 90th birthday, Bharat must introspect. Its prayashchit—penance—for Nehru's Himalayan blunder is not over. Tibet's destiny remains entwined with Bharat's strategic and moral dilemmas. The future of Tibet is now deeply tied to the question of the Dalai Lama's succession—a spiritual event that has acquired profound geopolitical dimensions.
Given Beijing's proven record, there is little doubt it will try to orchestrate the succession process to install a pliant figure. The fate of the Panchen Lama—abducted by China after being recognised by the Dalai Lama, replaced by Beijing's own nominee—serves as a chilling precedent. In 1995, when the 14th Dalai Lama identified six-year-old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the reincarnation of the 10th Panchen Lama—the second highest spiritual leader in Tibetan Buddhism—the Chinese government responded by abducting the boy and installing its own candidate. Thus, there now exist two Panchen Lamas: one legitimate, yet disappeared; the other, a puppet.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Panchen Lama is traditionally entrusted with the role of helping to identify the next Dalai Lama. By securing this position under its control, Beijing laid the groundwork to someday influence the selection of the Dalai Lama himself.
With the Dalai Lama turning 90, the stakes could not be higher. A manipulated succession would permanently compromise the Tibetan movement and also hurt Bharat's strategic interest. Therefore, it is imperative for the 14th Dalai Lama to secure his succession while alive, perhaps even innovating within Tibetan tradition by revealing or training his reincarnation in his lifetime. He has already suggested that the next Dalai Lama could be found outside Tibet—possibly even in India, where he has lived for over six decades.
Such a move would not only preserve the sanctity of Tibetan Buddhism but would also deny Beijing the leverage it desperately craves. Moreover, it would allow the Dalai Lama to personally mentor his successor, safeguarding doctrinal integrity.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Bharat must stand ready to support this process—not just out of dharmic solidarity with Tibetans, but also because it aligns squarely with its national interest. A free and spiritually vibrant Tibet acts as a moral and strategic bulwark against Chinese expansionism. Supporting Tibetans in securing an untainted succession of the Dalai Lama is, therefore, both Bharat's moral duty as well as its strategic imperative.
The succession of the Dalai Lama is far more than a religious ritual. It is a powerful assertion of Tibetan agency against Chinese imperial overreach. For Bharat, this is an opportunity to atone for past errors and to act in a way that is both dharmic and strategically astute. This, truly, would be Bharat's ultimate prayashchit.
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.