May 23, 2025: 108 Peace Institute in collaboration with the Organisation for Research on China and Asia (ORCA) successfully co-hosted a high-level panel discussions on the theme of “Tibet’s Crossroads: Global Stakeholders and the Succession Imperative” at India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi.
The second panel “ Beyond the 14th: Strategic Stakes in the Dalai Lama’s Succession Debate” featured Professor Bali R Deepak, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU); Mr. Kalpit Mankikar, China Fellow, Observer Research Foundation (ORF); Professor Nimmi Kurain, Professor, China Policy Research (CPR). Prof Sukh Deo Muni, Professor Emeritus, SIS, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) moderated the discussion.
Prof. S.D. Muni opened the second panel by raising questions on the succession of the 14th Dalai Lama amid current geopolitical tensions, and its implications. He suggested the possibility of two rival claimants to the title of the 15th Dalai Lama—one endorsed by the Chinese government and another endorsed by the Tibetan exile community. While the former may carry legitimacy from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Prof. Muni contended that the latter would hold greater spiritual and moral authority inside as well as outside Tibet.
Prof. Bali Deepak delved into the Dalai Lama’s view on succession citing the 2011 statement on his reincarnation and the Chinese responses to them from ritual and historical conventions, and legal instruments such as Order no 5 China has adopted. Dr. Deepak also observed alternate views from some Chinese scholars urging the CCP to correct its course. The scholars recognize Tibet’s distinct historical identity, call for an end to demonizing the Dalai Lama, and advocate for a nuanced discourse that moves away from portraying Tibetan culture as backward. They argue for greater engagement using the 11th Panchen Lama and reshaping the narrative surrounding the 15th reincarnation. Though these views may not align with official policy, they reflect ongoing internal debates. He noted that under Xi Jinping, China considers the Dalai Lama’s succession a key strategic issue and is investing heavily in controlling the reincarnation process as a long–term goal.
Mr. Kalpit Mankikar observed that the issue of the Dalai Lama’s succession has brought Tibet back into the international spotlight. He highlighted two significant developments in this regard: the visit of a high-level bipartisan U.S. congressional delegation to Dharamshala in June 2024, and the subsequent passage of the Resolve Tibet Act in July 2024. These moves were seen as positive steps forward for the Tibetan movement. The Resolve Tibet Act, in particular, marks a significant shift in U.S. policy. Beyond urging renewed dialogue with the Dalai Lama, his representatives, or the democratically elected leaders of the Tibetan community, the Act challenges the CCP’s long-standing narrative that Tibet has been an integral part of China since ancient times. This counters a central tenet of Beijing’s historical claim over Tibet.
Mr. Mankikar also noted that India has adopted a more assertive stance on Tibet over the past decade, citing the invitation extended to Tibetan leaders during Prime Minister Modi’s 2014 swearing-in ceremony and the deployment of the Tibetan Special Frontier Force (SFF) during the 2020 border standoff. Nevertheless, he cautioned that despite these encouraging signs both Indian and U.S. focus on Tibet might waver amid shifting geopolitical priorities. Sustaining attention on the Tibet issue, he noted, will require continued strategic and moral commitment amid an evolving global landscape.
Prof. Nimmi Kurian posed critical questions about the future of the Tibetan movement in the absence of the Dalai Lama. She asked whether the Dalai Lama’s moral authority can truly be passed on and whether the movement can sustain itself in the absence of a singular unifying figure. She further questioned whether the global discourse is overly fixated on political succession, arguing instead for a broader understanding of Tibet rooted in evolving identity discourses and not just geopolitics. Prof. Kurian stressed that India holds a unique position to facilitate this broader understanding given its deep historical ties to Tibet, longstanding role as host to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile community, and creating an enabling environment for Tibetan culture and tradition to sustain and thrive.
Prof. Kurian also cautioned against reducing the Dalai Lama to a mere “strategic asset” or referring to the so-called “Tibet card.”
Prof. Kurian also cautioned against reducing the Dalai Lama to a mere “strategic asset” and referring to the so-called “Tibet card.” Such terminology, she warned, undermines Tibetan agency and reinforces a narrow lens of great-power rivalry. Instead, she urged for a renewed focus on Tibet’s historic role as a regional connector and to shift the needle towards alternative articulations that locate Tibet at the intersection of culture, ecology, and social reproduction in the Himalayan borderlands.
In his closing remarks, Prof. Muni revisited India’s role, commending its efforts in providing humanitarian aid to the Tibetan exile community and facilitating in preservation of their ancient culture and tradition. However, he criticized India’s reluctance to take a stronger international stance on Tibet, especially when contrasted with China’s aggressive diplomacy on issues like Kashmir. Prof. Muni cautioned that without bridging the gap between moral support and strategic action, India risks limiting its influence in shaping Tibet’s future.
