Dr. Rammanohar Lohia,
Eminent Socialist Leader of
India, on Tibet
(i) Chinese Invasion of Tibet, October 1950:
CHINA has invaded Tibet, which can only mean that the giant
has moved to rub out the life of a child. Tibet’s present rulers
may or may not be reactionary and tyrannical but of her
independence from foreign control there can be no doubt. If
internal conditions of a country, which do not directly affect the
stability of another, can be a justification for invasion, it is China
today which has moved into Tibet but on that logic America
may someday move into Russia and Russia into India, and there
is no knowing where this sort of thinking may stop.
I had refused to take sides in the war between North and
South Korea, precisely because this was directly a war between
the Atlantic and the Soviet Camps. But Tibet belongs to neither
camp. To call the invasion of Tibet an effort to liberate three
million Tibetans is to make language lose all meaning and stop
all human communication and understanding. Freedom and
slavery, bravery and cowardice, loyalty and treason, truth and
lie, will become synonyms.
Our friendship and esteem for the people of China will never
dim, but we must state our conviction that the present
government of China will not be able to wash out the infamy of
this invasion and baby murder.
Defeated in Korea, the Soviet camp may have attempted to
bolster up its prestige through conquest of Tibet and that
emphasises the need for China to free herself from the foreign
policy of the Soviet camp.
China’s claim that she wishes to secure her western frontiers
in Tibet is thoroughly mischievous. Every nation will then try to
secure its frontiers all over the world. Furthermore, Tibet’s ties
13
are stronger with India than with China, ties of language and
trade and culture, not to speak of the strategic affinities between
India and Tibet, particularly western Tibet. The present
government of China has offended not only against India’s
interests by mobbing into Tibet.
If the government of China takes its stand on some wholly
inoperative but technical and doubtful issue of sovereignty, let
the will of the people of Tibet be ascertained in a plebiscite.
The India government will do well to advise the China
government to withdraw its army and, in view of the genuine
friendship between the two, to offer its services in the arranging
of such a plebiscite.
(ii) China’s Second Assault on Tibet, April 1959:
WHEN the ‘Baby Murder’ in Tibet took place nine years ago
most of the people who today are raising a hue and cry over the
second instalment of Chinese assault on the Tibetan people were,
as far as I remember, silent. Something ought to have been
done then, something ought to have been said. Which, however,
does not mean that nothing should be said now. But while saying
it people should not forget their weaknesses; as they say, when
the peacock dances it should do well to be aware of its legs. A
fundamental lack in foreign policy opinions is that they are
formed not on the anvil of the question of justice and injustice,
but around such passing considerations as interests, party
interests or personal interests. Nine years ago the India
government, and to some extent the Indian people, had such
friendly relations with the China government that no party or
leader in India dared to speak boldly on the Tibetan issue. The
situation has now altered. The surfacial relations between the
two governments are perhaps intact, but underneath a tension
has been smouldering for the last one or one-and-a-half years.
That is the reason why people were found tongue-tied in those
old conditions are now shouting themselves hoarse in defence
of the Tibetan people.
The state of public opinion on foreign policy matters is
everywhere marred thus with superficiality, more so, in India,
14
where the native government and the British Ruler possess the
monopoly of deciding as to which issues should agitate people’s
mind, by giving excessive publicity to relevant news and
information. The sooner the people of India try to observe deeper
than such superficial layers, the better for the country.
The foreign policy of India is called neutral, and, in a sense,
it is so because it is not slave to either of the power blocs but
does alternate service to both. During the past one or one-anda-half years the India government’s policy has tended more
towards the camp of capitalist democracy and America just as
in the four or five preceding years the shift was in favour of the
Soviet bloc. The alignment, however, is never definitive but the
balance of the two scales is tilted a bit one way or the other. It
is in this context that the Tibetan issue is being treated. A
country’s foreign policy should be objective, rational, concrete
and, as far as possible, idealistic. Today it is subjective and
emotional. What doubt can there be now that had India’s prime
or foreign minister been a man of Bengali ancestry, the core of
the conflict with Pakistan would have been formed out of the
problem of refugees from East Bengal; had he been a man of
Tamil ancestry, the problems of Indians in Sri Lanka would
undoubtedly have become the biggest single issue of India’s
foreign policy; now that he is a man of Kashmir ancestry the
Indo-Pakistan conflict has sharpened around the issue of
Kashmir which has, consequently, become the biggest single
problem of our foreign policy!
Every Indian has a special affection for Tibet. On the one
hand, there are such reasons as Manasarovar. The Indian heart
overflows with a calm but curious joy at the mention of the
name of Manasarovar. On the other hand, the childlike and
innocent people of Tibet have an irresistible appeal to us. There
is not the least doubt that Tibet and especially its western part
has greater cultural, religious and geographical affinities with
India than with China. Many people may not be knowing that
the Tibetan alphabet is a variation of the Indian alphabet, and
the Tibetan outlook is a curious blend of knowledge and
innocence. A Tibetan Buddhist nun at Sarnath once said: “Man
everywhere is bad, but a little less so in India and a little more
so in Tibet, which is why someone or other of the Buddhist
15
preachers and doctrines had to go to Tibet”.
There can be no second thoughts as to whether the Dalai
Lama should be accorded shelter in India. If the government
has any, it would be guilty of another baby murder. A selfrespecting nation must provide protective asylum for political
sufferers from foreign countries.
We have no partiality towards the Dalai Lama or the other
Lama. Nobody should have any. Those who today show
preference for one to the other have cold-war ties with either
America or Russia. The thought of Tibet and its Lamas does
arouse in the mind a natural romance but such sentiments should
only strengthen our demand for the religious independence of
Lamas and not their political authority.
The political authorities of the Lamas must be brought to an
end. It is said that the Chinese are doing that. But the China
government is doing that at the point of bayonet, and thus it may
turn out to be worse than the Lama rule itself. The efforts of
sane people should be directed towards awakening the Tibetan
masses so that their attitude towards the Lamas may change
and the rule of the Lamas may be liquidated.
The Chinese assault on Tibet is a brutal act. But its evil inheres
in communism as much as in capitalism. The Russian aggression
on Hungary, the Chinese aggression on Tibet, the Anglo-French
attack on Egypt–all these are outbursts of the same evil. The
two blood-thirsty giants–communism and capitalism–are sitting
across man’s breast and a man is a fool to be trying to prefer
one to the other. The events of the world get distorted when
they are seen either through the Atlantic or the Soviet spectacles.
The so-called neutral spectacles of India also obstruct clear
vision. We always wish for a rapprochement between America
and Russia, that Eisenhower and Khrushchev should embrace
each other and behave like brothers, which in fact they are.
Both America and Russia are great–great in wealth and great
in arms–and all other countries are dependent on them for
something or other. That gives rise to the tribe of jackals and
foxes in international politics. All nations of the world behave
either as jackals or as foxes towards these two colossi. Some
jackals are tied to one or the other of the two lions. But there
are also foxes who change their masters according to
16
convenience. The India government and people have acquired
the traits of the latter.
A misunderstanding, in connection with India’s foreign policy,
has been persisting and that is about Mr. Krishna Menon, who
has for a very long time been looked upon as pro-Communist
and pro-Russian. However, throughout he has remained loyal
to the British. The British foreign and military offices have a
wide network of agents all the world over, who are given
absolute freedom in all other matters except that they should
help preserve the influence of the British empire. Sometimes
this work is done not through the foreign office but through the
left parties of Britain. It looks at times as if not only Mr. Menon
but people greater than him are also tethered to this elastic British
policy.
Another point may be noted about the Chinese aggression.
China has already achieved steel production of one crore tons.
After four or five years India will reach the target of 60 lakh
tons, by which time China will be producing one crore and 70
lakh tons. We do not attach the highest importance to material
prosperity; but how does the world look upon it? All the sins of
Russia, even its sins in Hungary, could be washed away by the
invention of sputnik. Great thinkers and great philosophers of
the world bowed their heads before the technological power of
the Soviet government. People worship power, however,
merciless. The India government and the Praja Socialists do it
as much as people elsewhere. Then, the increasing steel output
of China will also have its inevitable effect. So long as the India
government and people do not bring about radical changes in
the socio-economic conditions they won’t be able to take out
the Chinese dragon’s teeth. Everything depends on AmericanSoviet relations. If they are not coming closer the tension with
regard to Tibet will grow. The innocent, childlike countenance
of the Tibetans will incite the capitalist world and enrage the
Communists. Nothing more will happen. If war was not waged
over white Hungary, it won’t certainly be waged over coloured
Tibet!