As part of the ongoing lecture series in honor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s 90th birthday, the 108 Peace Institute, in collaboration with the Department of Political Science at Presidency University, hosted an enriching talk on “Geopolitics of Succession: India, Tibet, and China Relations.” The lecture, delivered by Dr. Lobsang Sangay, was attended by more than 70 enthusiasts of geopolitics and Tibet, and was graced by the presence of the Head of the Department along with faculty members.
Dr. Sangay began by highlighting the deep historical ties between Bengal and Tibet. He recalled two eminent Bengalis: Atisha Dipankar, who revived Buddhism during its declining phase in Tibet in the 11th century, and Sarat Chandra Das, who traveled to Tibet in the 19th century, compiled the first Tibetan–English dictionary, and helped introduce Tibetan literature to the wider world. Drawing inspiration from these figures, he urged today’s generation to contribute to the Tibetan cause with the same dedication.
Citing a recent interview with the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Dr. Sangay noted that India shares its border with Tibet—not China—making it the Indo-Tibet border, rather than the Indo-China border. He emphasized that for thousands of years, there was no border between China and India. To further illustrate Tibet’s historical independence from China, he pointed out that the Buddhist monk and scholar Hiuen Tsang traveled to India via the Karakoram, Xinjiang, and Pakistan instead of taking a direct route through Tibet. Had Tibet been part of China, the Tibetan route would have been the natural choice for the Chinese scholar, said the speaker.
Dr. Sangay also referred to the 1914 Simla Agreement signed between Tibet and British India, which was renewed every ten years. However, after India gained independence in 1947, the treaty was renewed not with Tibet but with Beijing, eventually becoming the Panchsheel Agreement of 1954. Unlike Tibet, which renewed agreements for ten years with British India, China insisted on a five-year term, while India sought a longer duration to symbolize friendship. India persisted, and the treaty was extended to eight years. Ironically, he pointed out that this treaty turned out to be deceitful. While India celebrated “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai,” China had already planned its invasions. Five years after signing the treaty, Dr. Sangay enlightened that China occupied Tibet (1959), and three years later, it attacked India (1962)—all within the agreement’s eight-year duration.
He further recounted that under the Panchsheel Agreement, China sought and received India’s permission to use the Calcutta port to transport supplies to its troops in Tibet. Supplies moved via the Nathula Pass, which strengthened China’s position in Tibet. Later, Chinese troops advanced as far as Tezpur, Assam. Yet, in November 1962, they abruptly withdrew without significant resistance. Some argue this was because India had cut off China’s access to the Calcutta port, thereby severing their supply lines.
Dr. Sangay reminded the audience that as early as 1959, Tibet’s Finance Minister, Shakapa, had warned India that the occupation of Tibet would ultimately harm India even more than Tibet itself. At that time, there were only 80 Tibetan troops at the border; today, lakhs of Indian troops are stationed there to prevent Chinese incursions—underscoring the strategic loss of Tibet as a buffer state. He added that, as a result of China’s occupation, Indian devotees must now take longer routes via Sikkim to reach Manasarovar and Mount Kailash, which could earlier be accessed easily through Ladakh.
Dr. Sangay also explained China’s expansionist vision by recalling statements from Chinese leaders describing Tibet as the “palm,” with Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, and Ladakh as its “five fingers” to be brought under control. He said this strategy is visible today in Chinese incursions at Doklam, Galwan, and Arunachal Pradesh. He cautioned that Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka are under increasing Chinese influence, while Bhutan, though under pressure, remains inclined toward India. Quoting former Defense Minister George Fernandes, he stressed that India’s principal adversary is not Pakistan but China. He also cited a New York Times report which revealed that China has constructed more than 300 villages along the LAC—inside, at, and beyond the line—while India has constructed none. These villages, heavily incentivized by Beijing, serve as tools to assert territorial claims.
On the issue of the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation, Dr. Sangay emphasized that it is fundamentally a matter of individual human rights. Whether His Holiness chooses to reincarnate or not is solely his decision—neither his family, the Buddhist community, nor any government has the authority to interfere. In particular, the atheist Chinese Communist Party, which openly dismisses religion as “poison,” has no role whatsoever. His Holiness recently declared that, in response to the prayers of thousands of followers across India, Tibet, Asia, and the West, he has resolved that the Dalai Lama Institution will continue. Reincarnation, Dr. Sangay explained, though it is his personal choice, he doesn’t come back on his own; the guru returns at the request of followers, to continue guiding them on the path of enlightenment.
He noted that the U.S. government has passed a law imposing sanctions on any interference in the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation. India, he stressed, has always upheld religious freedom and should continue this tradition by supporting His Holiness’s declaration.
Addressing participants’ curiosity about the succession process, Dr. Sangay explained that upon the Dalai Lama’s passing, a regent or regency appointed by the Dalai Lama would represent him and oversee the search. A committee familiar with His Holiness would conduct familiarity and similarity tests among potential candidates. For instance, the 13th Dalai Lama was recognized by his cook, who was in the search committee. The committee would narrow the candidates to three, and divination would determine the final choice. Historically, Dalai Lamas have been born in diverse regions—including Mongolia and Arunachal Pradesh—and Dr. Sangay suggested that the 15th Dalai Lama could potentially be from India.
He warned, however, that China is attempting to manipulate the process by promoting a state-appointed Panchen Lama to recognize the next Dalai Lama. But Dr. Sangay clarified the crucial difference between endorsement and recognition, which he said the Tibetan community is also not much aware of. While Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas have historically endorsed one another, recognition is a separate and sacred process. He stressed that recognition of the Dalai Lama rests solely with the Gaden Phodrang, while the Panchen Lama is recognized by Tashi Lhunpo Monastery. In the past, no Panchen Lama has been a part of the recognition of the Dalai Lama, except for an endorsement calling Chinese move manipulative by Dr. Sangay. He recalled how, in 1995, the Dalai Lama endorsed a six-year-old boy as the 11th Panchen Lama, and immediately after that, Chinese authorities abducted him and installed their own “Panchen Lama,” whose parents were CCP members. To this day, the real Panchen Lama remains missing. Hence, any Dalai Lama “endorsed” by the Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama would be deemed illegitimate.
In closing, Dr. Sangay reflected on His Holiness’s extraordinary global stature. Despite living in exile, the Dalai Lama has received over 100 international awards, yet India has not conferred upon him the Bharat Ratna. Drawing on his own experience of working closely with His Holiness for a decade across 100 meetings, Dr. Sangay remarked that he has learned immeasurably from his wisdom and leadership.
The lecture concluded with an engaging and thought-provoking question-and-answer session. The lively exchange not only addressed key concerns but also deepened participants’ understanding of Tibet’s historical and political context, as well as the complexities surrounding the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation issue. The session left the audience better informed and intellectually enriched.