Should Tibet Seek Autonomy as in Pre-Independent India?

Even as the battle-scarred figurehead of the Tibetan community, the Holy Dalai Lama, continues to lead his brigade against the might of their Communist rulers, as yet, there are no signs of buckle-down by either of the sides. From the wintery day in 1959 when His Holiness was forced to flee the Norbulingka, his summer palace in Tibet and take refuge across the border in the confines of Dharmsala with his followers, to escape the tyranny of the Chinese invaders, his life has been at the bleakest edge of social and political turmoil. China on its part has been offering a euphemistic rationale to its acts, alluding them to Mao Tse-tung’s rather archaic ideals of adding Tibet to the family of the People’s Republic of China and freeing its inhabitants from feudal tyranny. 58 years later, that very Dharmsala became a hot spot of congregation for Tibetans round the world to express complete faith in His Holiness’ primacy as their undisputed leader. To the Dalai Lama it is quite clear that total independence from China is not quite at hand yet he knows that groups like the Tibetan Youth Congress are steadfast in pursuing the cause.

His Holiness has all along been intransigent in following the ‘middle path’ that seeks autonomy within the region and under Chinese command. Nothing articulates this belief better than his saying – ‘The aims of the Lord Buddha and of Karl Marx are not incompatible. Both were concerned with bringing happiness to the masses, the Buddha with spiritual happiness and Marx with material happiness. Is it not reasonable then to see how the two might work together?’ Unfortunately, in the current day scenario, such an ideologue of incorporating materialism in spiritual progress is like putting an elephant on the tendril and cannot be a sacrosanct norm adopted by the Tibetans. The genesis of this could be found in the ‘cultural revolution’ in China in 1966, which has led to the systematic decimation of religious institutions in Tibet by the Communist regime. Therefore, any crusade in Tibet that uses religious sentiment as its preamble and does not stand the onslaught of reason is bound to crumble.

In 1987, His Holiness had formulated a five-point peace plan, one of which was the demilitarization of Tibet - a fore-runner for seeking provincial autonomy in the region, which eventually fell through. However, hypothetically perhaps, it wouldn’t be off the mark to suggest that Tibet could explore the possibility of adopting a structure similar to what was proposed for India under British rule in the year 1917 and ratified in the House of Commons; which was a forerunner to India’s independence three decades later. It called for the increased association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions towards progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British empire.

To start with, Tibet’s policy should propose to extend to the domain of its provinces. This would mean, having a federal system of government at the Lhasa under China’s command and constituting a federal assembly on the basis of representation of provinces in accordance with the population. China can be persuaded to adhere to the principle of a federal government and grant full autonomy to the provincial governments run by Tibetans. Thus the central government shall administer the federal subjects while the provincial governments will have full authority in the provincial fields.

Such a system may sound quite untenable but it could be quite significant in the light of the increasing growth of social & political unrest in the Tibetan people the world over. Even if total independence isn’t quite imminent, at least some form of self-government could well be the pre-cursor towards fulfilling a long-cherished dream of Tibet’s liberation movement. Provincial autonomy for Tibet under Chinese rule could well mark the end of one epoch and the beginning of a new one.