By John Q. Hosedrinker 
China’s official stance, as articulated by Li Decheng of the China Tibetology Research Centre, firmly rejects the Dalai Lama’s proposal for a foreign successor. This rejection is based on the assertion that such a reincarnation would violate Chinese law, religious tradition, and historical precedent. Li Decheng stated unequivocally that any such foreign reincarnation would not be recognized by China. The recent announcement by the Dalai Lama regarding his potential reincarnation outside of China prompted this official response and a forum explaining China’s position on the reincarnation process.
Read the original article here
Overseas Dalai Lama reincarnation ‘could not be recognised’ by Beijing, a statement that seems to encapsulate the core of the conflict. The Chinese government’s refusal to acknowledge any reincarnation candidate outside of their control highlights the deeply political nature of this seemingly spiritual succession. This isn’t simply about religious belief; it’s a power struggle over Tibet’s identity and future.
The sheer absurdity of the situation is undeniable. A nominally atheist government deeply involved in the selection of a religious leader, meticulously managing the reincarnation of a figure central to Tibetan Buddhism, is inherently paradoxical. The irony, some might argue, is delicious, especially considering the ideological clash between Marxism and the concept of reincarnation. The very idea suggests a degree of superstitious faith within the Chinese government, perhaps a calculated move to exert control rather than genuine religious belief.
The question of an overseas reincarnation further complicates matters. The current Dalai Lama’s statements about his own non-reincarnation add another layer of uncertainty. This introduces the possibility of a schism, with differing factions claiming legitimacy for their chosen successor. This scenario perfectly plays into the hands of the Chinese government, creating opportunities for manipulation and the installation of a puppet Dalai Lama.
The issue transcends the simple succession of a spiritual leader. It’s about maintaining control over Tibet, a region that China claims as its own. By controlling the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation, Beijing aims to control the spiritual heart of Tibetan identity and thus diminish the potential for resistance to Chinese rule. This isn’t a matter of theological debate; it’s a geopolitical struggle.
The potential for an overseas reincarnation further challenges Beijing’s authority and legitimizes the Tibetan spiritual leadership outside of China’s influence. This act would symbolize the defiance of Tibetan Buddhists against Chinese control and the resilience of their culture and faith in the face of oppression.
Many have pointed to the hypocrisy of the Chinese government’s actions, emphasizing the kidnapping of the Panchen Lama as a blatant example of their intervention in religious matters. This act undermines the traditional process of recognizing reincarnations within Tibetan Buddhism, creating a highly contested and politically charged environment.
Some observers highlight the ludicrous nature of the entire debate, pointing to the essentially fictitious nature of the reincarnation process itself. Others emphasize the political manipulation at play, viewing the succession as a power struggle disguised as a religious matter. The cynical might see it as just another chapter in a long history of political exploitation using religion as a tool.
The current situation recalls similar controversies, such as the Karmapa controversy, demonstrating that this isn’t a unique occurrence. The manipulation of religious leadership for political gain is a recurring theme in history, and the ongoing conflict over the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation serves as a stark contemporary example.
The arguments against China’s actions often center on the ethical concerns surrounding child grooming and the violation of individual rights. The forced selection and control of a child’s life in the name of religious succession raises serious questions about human rights and religious freedom.
Ultimately, Beijing’s refusal to recognize an overseas Dalai Lama reincarnation is a calculated move to consolidate control over Tibet. It’s a power play that overshadows any religious considerations and serves as a significant factor in the ongoing Sino-Tibetan conflict. The outcome will likely shape the future of Tibetan Buddhism and the relationship between Tibet and China for decades to come. The international community’s response to this situation will be critical in determining the course of events and protecting the cultural and religious identity of the Tibetan people.