Introduction

• 1950s – 1970s: Initial Support and Diplomatic Recognition
  • 1954: India recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) as part of the People’s Republic of China.
  • 1959: India offers refuge to the Dalai Lama and allows Tibetan refugees to settle in India after the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule.
• 1980s – 1990s: Balancing Act: India maintains a delicate balance by continuing to offer asylum to Tibetan refugees while also officially recognizing Tibet as part of China. This period involves a careful diplomatic stance, avoiding direct confrontation with China over Tibet.
• 2000s: Strategic Caution: Given China’s actions, such as renaming places in Arunachal Pradesh and issuing stapled visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir, India stops articulating a ‘One China’ policy. This marks a significant shift, reflecting growing concerns over China’s respect for India’s territorial integrity.
  • Throughout this period, India continues to refrain from publicly criticising China’s policies in Tibet, emphasising its stance through its actions rather than statements.
• 2014 – 2019: Symbolic Gestures and Increased Sensitivity: Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited the Tibetan Sikyong (elected leader) for the swearing-in ceremony(2014), symbolising a degree of support for the Tibetan cause.
  • 2018: The Indian government issues a circular reminding officials not to attend events commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s flight to India, showcasing increased sensitivity towards China’s potential reactions.
  • 2019: Tibetan Sikyong was not invited for the 2019 swearing-in ceremony, indicating a more cautious approach.

• Present: The visit by a U.S. delegation to Dharamshala and their strong statements on Tibet challenge India’s traditionally cautious approach. 
  • The Indian government’s decision to allow this visit and the subsequent speeches by U.S. lawmakers highlight a potential shift or at least a moment of reconsideration in India’s Tibet policy.
  • This is interpreted as a strong message from New Delhi to Beijing amidst continuing tensions between the two countries, as a resolution to the Line of Actual Control military stand-off eludes them since the deadly 2020 Galwan clash.

• Strategic Autonomy: India needs to carefully navigate the space between U.S. and Chinese interests to maintain its strategic autonomy and influence in the region, especially considering its significant role in providing refuge to the Tibetan diaspora.

Conclusion:

• India’s approach to Tibet has been one of cautious diplomacy, aimed at balancing its support for the Tibetan people with the need to manage its complex relationship with China. 
• India must develop its long-term strategy concerning Tibet, particularly regarding the Dalai Lama’s succession and its broader geopolitical stance in the face of U.S.-China issues.