Atal Behari Vajpayee,
Prime Minister of India,
Member of Parliament and
Leader of Bharatiya Janta
Party, on Tibet
(i) Tibet’s Independence
(8 May, 1959, Lok Sabha)
SINCE the beginning of the communist government in China,
India, in spite of a great friendship with Chang-Kai-Shek, has
welcomed the new China and we have tried more than anybody
else so that China gets respect in the nations of the world.
Sometimes, it seems that we are taking much more initiative
than China herself in this regard. We have defended China
because we thought that, although we differ on communism, if
the people of China take to this road, it is their business, and
India and China can remain friends in spite of differences in our
ways of life.
But the first blow to this friendship was struck when the
armies of China ‘liberated’ Tibet. At that time, our Prime
Minister had asked: liberated from whom? Tibet was not under
any domination. India is the closest neighbour of Tibet. In the
history of the past, if we had wanted we could have tried to
annex Tibet, but today the leaders of China, who accuse India
of being expansionist, forget that we never tried to annex Tibet.
Tibet is a small country. But we respected its distinct existence.
We respected the independence of Tibet, and we hoped that
China would do the same. But the ways of the Communists are
different. Their use of words is different. When they want to
enslave people, they say that they are going to liberate them.
Today when they want to oppress people, they say that they are
going to reform them. If reform is at all necessary, the inclination
towards reform should come from those who have to make
55
reforms. Reform can’t be imposed from above.
But what is happening in Tibet is not reform. Following the
agreement of 1950, China should have respected the autonomy
of Tibet, but China has interfered in the internal affairs of Tibet.
Lakhs of Chinese from China have been brought to Tibet so
that the Tibetans may become a minority in their own country
and so that in the future Tibet may become an inseparable part
of China. From Tibet thousands of young people have been sent
to China to get education in the new religion, but when they
came back and Chinese leaders saw that it had had no effect
on them, their Tibetan colour had not been erased, their
distinctiveness was firm and their enthusiasm for protecting their
way of life was indelible, then they got alerted and they tried to
erase the way of life of Tibet. The present struggle arose because
of a big nation desiring to swallow a small nation.
Accepting Chinese Sovereignty Over Tibet is a Big Mistake
My submission is that when we accepted the sovereignty of
China on Tibet we made a big mistake. That day was a very
unfortunate day. But the mistake has been made. Perhaps we
thought that the matter would be solved, that there would be no
more fight, and we did not want to give others the opportunity
to take advantage of differences between us and China. But
what was the result? Not only did China break the agreement
with Tibet, but they also violated the agreement with India which
was in the background of this agreement. Where has the
Panchsheel agreement gone? Those who proclaim Panchsheel
say that according to Panchsheel, democracy and dictatorship
can live together. If for the communist imperialism, the peaceloving and religion-loving people of Tibet can’t keep their way
of life, then it is meaningless to say that in such a big world,
communism and democracy can co-exist. We don’t want to
interfere in the internal affairs of Tibet. But Tibet is not an internal
affair of China. China is bound to respect the autonomy of Tibet,
to refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of Tibet. But
this agreement was broken and I believe that now India, the
Indian government, should revise its position. Agreements have
two sides, they are to be respected by both sides. If China violated
56
the agreement, we have the right to reconsider our situation.
What is the reason for the people of Tibet to be deprived of
their freedom?
Why can’t Tibet remain free? People say that it was not
free before. Does it mean that a country which was not free
before cannot have the right to be free? That where there was
servitude before, servitude should remain? If we support the
independence of Algeria, and if this support does not mean
interfering in the internal affairs of France, then how can the
support for Tibetan independence be an interference in the
internal affairs of China? My friend Shri Khadilkar has just said
that no party in the country supports the independence of Tibet.
I beg to disagree. I represent a small party, but our party defends
the independence of Tibet. Whether the cause of Tibet’s
independence is right or wrong cannot be decided by the number
of people who raise their voices. The Chinese imperialism today
may suppress by their brutality the cry of Tibetan independence,
but the thirst for independence cannot be extinguished. In this
movement the repression will act like a wind-storm in a fire,
and to-morrow, if not today, the people of Tibet will definitely
get their freedom.
But the question is: what can we do for it? I have said that
we made a mistake in 1950. Now we have to bear the
consequences. But the time has come to repent, to recognise
the mistake. I hope that on this occasion the Prime Minister will
truly represent the crores of people of this country. Except a
few of our friends, all India is unanimous on this question that
what is happening in Tibet should not happen. But is it possible
that Tibet can enjoy autonomy under the Chinese rule? It seems
to me that the communist system and autonomy are two
contradictory things. Under communist rule, autonomy cannot
exist. In 1930, Mao Zedong had said: we have made the
constitution in such a way that if somebody wants to go out, he
can. The Tibetans did not speak about going out. They wanted
to keep their separate existence, but even this permission was
not given to them.
He also said that they wanted to see a flower blossom which
will have a thousand petals. Forget about thousand, even the
soft bud of Tibet is being crushed. What the imperialists do in
57
Tibet, they accuse us. We never tried to annex Tibet. We have
advocated for a place be given to China in UN, we could
advocate also for a place given to Tibet. Ukraine is a part of the
Soviet Union, but it has a separate seat in the UN. So could not
Tibet, even though being with China, have a distinct seat in UN?
But we have not done this, because of our friendship with China.
What have we received in return for this friendship?
We want friendship even today, but we should not build the
palace of this friendship on the dead body of Tibet’s
independence. We can’t close our eyes on injustice. It has been
the tradition of India, and in this tradition the Prime Minister has
conducted the foreign policy of this country, that wherever there
is injustice, murder of humanity, tyranny, we raise our voice in
protest, we speak the language of truth and we fearlessly protect
the rights of those who are trampled upon. Today Tibet is the
criterion of the policies of Nehruji, Tibet is the touchstone of the
firmness of the Indian government, Tibet is the touchstone of
the desirability of Panchsheel. It is not with the declarations of
Panchsheel that the feeling of Panchsheel will be respected.
The touchstone of Panchsheel is the behaviour. The Prime
Minister may act with restrain, nevertheless if the problem of
Tibet is not solved with it, we will have to recognize that it is
necessary to bring a little firmness, a little activity into this policy.
Whether the Dalai Lama should remain in Tibet or should go
is not a big question. The Tibetans will decide among themselves.
But Tibet is the touchstone for big nations swallowing small
nations. If small countries are swallowed in this fashion, world
peace cannot be firmly established. In South-East Asia, there
are many countries where Chinese people live in great number.
Because of Tibet, in all these countries a wave of apprehension
has arisen. As far as India is concerned, China has a wicked
policy on us. In the maps of China a province of us is said to be
theirs. The communists of China have expelled Chang-kai-Shek
but have kept his maps. If they had wanted they could have
rejected also his maps. And our communist friends have not
seen these maps. I don’t believe what they are saying. But this
is an indirect attack of China on India. China has occupied two
places in Uttar Pradesh. These events point to the danger ahead.
We don’t have to be terrified but we have to adopt a strong
58
policy.
I will make another submission. The Dalai Lama has come
to India. He is a fighter for freedom, he fights for the freedom
of his country, and as a result he had to leave his country and
come to India. I would like that he be allowed to lead the fight
for the independence of his country from India. Although the
restrictions have been placed for security reasons, they should
be relaxed. In the days of the British Raj, if our patriots could
go to other countries and, from there, fight for India’s
independence and be objects of respect for us, there is no reason
why the Dalai Lama should not be given this liberty.
If the Dalai Lama is successful in making a compromise
with China, and our Prime Minister can be a mediator in this
relation, nothing will make the people of this country happier.
But if the leaders of China can’t be brought to the right path, if
they can’t be persuaded by political or diplomatic pressure, and
having awakened the public opinion in Burma, Lanka and
Indonesia, and organising and making a strong demonstration of
it, if China cannot be influenced, then India will have no other
option left, except to allow the Dalai Lama to fight for the
freedom of his country.
The youth of India consider the independence of Tibet as
something precious not because they have a close relationship
with Tibet, but because we have lived in servitude, we know the
suffering and pain of servitude, we know the price of freedom –
- they should be given the liberty to act. If the people of Tibet
fight for freedom, the people of India will be with them. We will
give them our sympathy and we would expect China not to give
imperialist talks. The days of imperialism are over. But this is a
new imperialism. The danger is that it comes under the pretence
of revolution, it comes disguised in the garb of revolution, it
comes raising the slogan of a new order, but colonialism it is,
imperialism it is. In the history of the past, we fought against
the imperialism of the white people but now on the roof of the
world appears the imperialism of the yellow people. We should
face it also with determination.
59
(ii) India’s Tibet Policy
(4 September, 1959, Lok Sabha)
THE problem of Tibet is before us. The first time when the
Tibetan question was raised in the UN, our representative, as
the Prime Minister said, had expressed hope that the problem
of Tibet will be resolved peacefully by talks with China, but the
history of these 9 years is the proof that there was no effort to
solve the problem of Tibet peacefully.
China has used force in Tibet. China has tried to erase the
free existence of Tibet and in my last speech I had said that
today the question is not only of autonomy or freedom of Tibet
but the question is whether Tibet will continue to live as a separate
country with all its characteristics? If the hopes of the Indian
Government that the Tibetan question would be solved peacefully
had been realised, India and this House would have been happy.
But there is no hope that it can be solved through mutual talks.
The Prime Minister in his speech did not express this hope either.
We have received the Dalai Lama and his companions in India,
this is very good and everybody welcomes it. But does the duty
of India towards Tibet stop with giving shelter to the Dalai
Lama? Will the Dalai Lama and his companions be able to go
back to Tibet with honour? Can the autonomy of Tibet, which
China guaranteed, return? Will Tibet be able to defend its
existence? No answer was given to these questions.
The Prime Minister said that his policy is to keep friendship
with China. The whole country agrees with this policy. Not only
with China, even with Pakistan we want friendship. We want
friendship with all the countries, but the question is: what will be
the basis for this friendship? At what price shall we achieve
this friendship? We want friendship with France but we can’t
for its sake refuse to support the independence of Algeria. We
want friendship with Portugal also, but we cannot, for that, stop
demanding the freedom of Goa. We want friendship also with
South Africa, but we cannot, for that reason, stop raising the
question of Blacks in the United Nations. Each year we raise
the question of Indians in Africa. Each year South Africa refuses
60
to accept the decisions of the UN, but we raise this question
because we think that there is no other way for solving these
questions than to awaken the world opinion.
When I proposed to bring the Tibetan question to the UN,
my intention was clear that we believe in the UN, it is why we
should bring this question there. And we believe in the
genuineness of Tibet’s complaint, it is why also we should bring
this question there.
Now, whether it will be useful to bring the question of Tibet
there or not, I think that it is best if we don’t decide about it. We
should go according to the decision of the highest authority of
Tibet, the Dalai Lama. Can somebody decide better than the
Dalai Lama where lies the interest of Tibet? The Dalai Lama,
on the 30th of August, has appealed to all the civilised nations,
in which India is included, asking them to bring the Tibetan
question to the UN. The Prime Minister now refuses to accept
my proposal, so he refuses also to accept the appeal of the
Dalai Lama. If the Dalai Lama believes there can be some gain
in bringing the problem of Tibet to the UN, I think that India
should raise this question. The Prime Minister has not made it
clear either what will be our policy if any country brings the
Tibetan question to the UN. We cannot prevent a country from
bringing this question. At that time, shall we say that this question
should not be raised? A clear direction should be given to our
representatives who will take part in the General Assembly. I
doubt if the leader of our delegation who are going to participate
in the General Assembly can truly represent the Indian feelings.
Already before, on the question of Hungary they did not
correctly express the feelings of the people of India. The Prime
Minister said something and the leader of our delegation said
something else. I am afraid that this history will repeat itself on
the question of Tibet. It is why, if the Indian Government does
not raise the question of Tibet, and if some other country raises
the question, India should support it, as the amendment proposed
by the Congress member, Dr Gohokar. Last time we did not
support it, it is why no country in the world moved. After all, we
have the greatest interest in Tibet, we have the most sympathy
for Tibet, Tibet is our neighbour.
61
I want to ask: if another country raises the question of Tibet,
what will be the policy of India? I want to know what is the
opinion of the government about the amendment proposed by
the Congress member? It is not my amendment. The Prime
Minister did not clarify the stand of the government in this regard.
There are practical difficulties with regard to the question of
Tibet, all right, but there is no other solution in view except
bringing the matter to the UN. There will be heated discussions
there, all right. But if we believe in the UN and if China wants
to enter the UN, the world opinion should have an effect on
China. Now there is only one option for India: appeal to the soul
of the world, awaken the consciousness of the world, awaken
the world’s public opinion against the violation of human rights
in Tibet. And if there is no effect on communist China, at least
we will have this satisfaction that we have done our duty. We
want to know what is the policy of the Indian government
towards Tibet. Is it the policy of sitting immobile? Is it a policy
of indecision? A policy of helplessness? After all, what are the
steps we are taking for resolving the Tibetan problem peacefully?
I have said that the problem of Tibet is not solved by only giving
shelter to the Dalai Lama.
I want to add one more thing. Now India has decided that
we will again raise the proposal for bringing China in the UN.
We have been raising this question for the past 7 years. But in
today’s circumstances, is it necessary that we make this
proposal? China may want to enter the UN, but taking into
account what is happening between us and China, should we
take the initiative for giving place to China in the United Nations?
I believe the time has come for the Indian Government to drop
this proposal. If any other country of the world wants to bring
this question, let us support it. If we are not ready to raise the
question of Tibet, then considering what China does to us, why
should we take the initiative to make China enter the UN? And
finally, as I have said, friendship with China does not mean that
they keep kicking us and we keep kissing their feet. Friendship
can be based on self-respect. China is the aggressor, China has
stepped on our border. She is knocking at our door, and the
Prime Minister says that we are not ready to talk about the
62
border. I believe we should not now raise the question of China.
I appeal to this House to accept my proposal and prove that,
although due to some international difficulties the Indian
government cannot raise the question of Tibet, the feelings of
the people of India are with the people of Tibet, they are with
the Dalai Lama.
(iii) Indian People’s Support for Tibet
(17 March, 1960, Lok Sabha)
TODAY it was reported in the newspapers that amongst the
Tibetan refugees sent from Misamari camp to Dharamshala,
five died in the transport and we don’t know the whereabouts
of 30 Tibetans, maybe they disappeared on the way. It is also
said that the Government did not make arrangements for their
medical treatment. During the travel there was no interpreter
with them, who could understand their difficulties and try to
remedy them.
After the decision was taken to settle the refugees in
Dharamshala, and the Government asked us money for that,
there should have been such an arrangement for taking them
there so that there is no reason to complain from anybody.
The Tibetan refugees have come to our country due to tragic
circumstances. I feel that our duty does not end with settling
them. People have often mentioned in this discussion the Tibetan
Convention which is about to take place in Delhi. I am sorry to
see that our government, and especially our Prime Minister, have
expressed their displeasure about this convention. It is true that
this convention is something that comes from the people. It may
be that the government does not feel it is its duty, but the people
of the country understand what is our moral duty towards Tibet.
India who has come out of a foreign domination cannot be
prevented from expressing her sympathy towards countries who
are enchained under a new domination. The Prime Minister has
perhaps forgotten, may I remind him of what he said on the 7th
of December 1950, standing in this very same House and I
quote his words here:
63
“It is not right for any country to talk about its sovereignty or
suzerainty over an area outside its own immediate range. That
is to say, since Tibet is not the same as China, it should ultimately
be the wishes of the people of Tibet that should prevail and not
any legal or constitutional arguments. … it is right and proper
thing to say and I can see no difficulty in saying to the Chinese
Government that whether they have suzerainty or sovereignty
over Tibet, surely, according to principles, principles which they
proclaim and the principles which I uphold, the last voice in
regard to Tibet should be the voice of the people of Tibet and of
nobody else.”
These words cannot be forgotten, but if we look today at the
conduct of the Indian Government with Tibet, we see a great
difference. Our Prime Minister has struggled all his life against
imperialism and colonialism. It is possible that due to certain
difficulties today he can’t really speak his mind. But I don’t
believe that when there is an attack on humanity and a violation
of human rights, there is no anger in his heart.
If he cannot speak, if he cannot support the demands of the
people of Tibet, then I feel that if the people of India organize a
conference and want to express the sympathy of the countries
of Asia and Africa for Tibet, at least he should not express his
displeasure. We can understand the policy of the Communist
party, this is the same Communist party which supported the
communal demand for Pakistan and on that same principle they
are not ready to apply the principle of right of self-determination
to Tibet. Comrade Krutchev can apply the right of selfdetermination to Pakhtunistan but here the Communist Party
will not speak about Tibet. Let them not speak; but they don’t
want to let us speak either and they praise our Prime Minister
because due to the difficult circumstances he cannot express
openly his support for the people of Tibet.
I am not prepared to agree that the feelings of our Prime
Minister are not with the people of Tibet. China had promised
Tibet to respect its autonomy and on the basis of this assurance
Tibet has given a small part of its sovereignty to China; but
when China violated this agreement, the part of sovereignty
that Tibet has surrendered goes back to Tibet, it is why to say
64
that Tibet cannot demand its autonomy is, I think, wrong from a
legal point of view. If the government cannot do anything because
of certain difficulties, it should refrain from saying things which
hurt the feelings of the people willing to express their sympathy.
I believe that the security of India is linked with the autonomy
of Tibet. If we support the independence of Algeria, and if the
Communist Party also does it, nobody should object against any
kind of demand for the autonomy of Tibet. But China claims
that Tibet is a part of China, in the same way Portugal claims
that Goa is a part of Portugal. We cannot accept this claim of
Portugal, and we cannot accept that claim either. China removed
Tibet from the map of the world. I am sorry to see that in the
maps printed by the Government of India also, Tibet is not there.
Tibet has been erased from the map. The name of Tibet is not
on these maps. There is only the name of China on them. China
has erased Tibet, does it follow that Tibet is also erased for us?
I don’t believe that any thing good is going to come out of that.
This policy is not correct for India from the moral point of view,
but even if we look at it only from the point of view of national
interests, the fact that Tibet is being annihilated cannot be for
the good of India in the long run.
(iv) India’s Position on The Question of Tibet in
the UN
[22 November, 1960, Lok Sabha (extract)]
IT is sad that we decided not to support Thailand and Malaysia
in their protest about the violation of human rights in Tibet. If
India does not recognise the right of self-determination to Tibet,
it can be explained because India has received in the legacy
from the British that China has suzerainty over Tibet. But as far
as the violation of human rights is concerned India can’t remain
a silent spectator. To say that this question is a matter of the
cold war and that we don’t want that on this question the cold
war starts, or to say that China is not present there and that
therefore there is no sense in raising this question there, these
are arguments I don’t understand. If China is not there [dans le
65
un], what can we do about it? But we have the responsibility to
express the feelings of India vis-a-vis the people of Tibet. If we
speak about ending the imperialism and colonialism, if we are
against French imperialism in Algeria, we cannot close our eyes
on a new imperialism rising at our border, on the top of
Himalayas. My request is that the Indian Government should
reconsider its policy in this regard.
Yes, it is true that if the question of Tibet is raised in the UN,
no solution is going to be found. But we have raised many
questions there, the solutions of which were not found and in
doing so we had the satisfaction that we had done our duty.
When we claim to raise our voice in the whole world against
colonialism and imperialism, we can’t sit with our eyes closed
on the events taking place in Tibet.