Future Fact-Finding Missions

April-1981

The cancellation of the fourth delegation of fact-finding mission to Tibet takes the Peking-Dharamsala relationship back to pre-liberalization sate. This development should, if nothing else, quieten for the time being those who held that some sort of negotiation for the future of Tibet was in progress. Speculations like the Tibetan acceptance of an autonomous status and the Dalai Lama’s imminent return have lost their basis with the termination of the delegation diplomacy. There are yet sufficient grounds, however, for speculations on the real reason behind this lattest Chinese move.

Officially two different reasons are known so far. Peking is believed to have conveyed to Dharamsala that there “have not been sufficient changes” in Tibet since the visit of the third delegation to make it worthwhile for the fourth. On the other hand, the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi has reportedly informed a Tibetan Cabinet Minister more recently that they have taken exception at the second delegation’s behaviour, at the Tibetan welcome to Brezhnev in New Delhi, and at the Tibetan demonstrators throwing stones at the Chinese embassy on 10 March.

Both reasons are inconsistent with the policy of liberalization that the Chinese still profess to pursue in Tibet. According to the original schedule worked out by mutual agreement, the second, third and fourth delegation were all to visit Tibet one after another last year. There was no talk at that time of allowing time gap between successive delegations for any reason. In any case, recording changes between the visits of one group and next has only been of secondary consideration. It was announced at that time that the fourth delegation would mainly concentrate on covering areas—such as the western part of the country—that it’s predecessors were not able to.

The Chinese objection remains incongruous even if the main aim of the fourth delegation were to record changes. The third delegation had completed its visit in September last year. In January this year, the Chinese media itself has reported at least two major events in Tibet—existence of widespread unrest throughout the country and a major earthquake in the Kham region.

It is not difficult to guess why the Chinese themselves took the trouble of informing the world that there was unrest in the hitherto “peaceful and prosperous” roof of the world. It would only be a question of time before the occurrence of such a major event is known in the outside world. If the Chinese had kept silent about it now it would have reflected unfavourably upon them later. This clever move, however, makes on thing certain: the unrest was much more serious than a matter of “a handful of people preventing implementation of the Party’s policies on religion and national minorities.”

If this is the case, then clearly this would be the main reason for Peking’s unwillingness to allow another delegation from exile to visit Tibet. The delegation diplomacy had started off quite satisfactorily from the Chinese point of view. The first one kept its side of the bargain faithfully—not to publicise its findings outside the Tibetan circles; and for some time only the Chinese explanation of the new development was known to the world. As a result, the second delegation was greeted with warm welcome and similar expectations of correct behaviour. Confident of their hold over the local population and assured of discretion by the visitors, the Chinese had also invited a group of foreign journalist in Lhasa to witness what was hoped to be a political circus setting the Peking performance off in bright relief. The Lhasa population, however, behaved spontaneously despite earlier warnings of dire consequences, and demonstrated in no uncertain manner its support of the exiled government and disapproval of the current regime. The Chinese retaliated by cancelling the remaining one week of the delegation’s visit; and the Tibetans countered by publicising the delegation’s findings through press statements, public talks and film shows.

Under the circumstances it is not at all surprising that the Chinese is not interested in any more visiting delegations. Moreover, even individual visitors are reported being more strictly screened. A number of exiles who had already procured permission to visit Tibet have been refused recently. Whether there will ever be more delegations will depend on whether the Chinese will be once more confident of its hold over the people. On January 19, Yin Fatang, the Chinese Communist chief in Tibet, had urged the army to ‘firmly put down’ the people responsible for the present unrest. “These people who are disrupting the peace and unity should at all cost be fought and beaten,” Radio Lhasa quoted him as saying. It must be assumed that the process of putting down the unrest is still going on, and that until it has been completely quashed, the Chinese will not consider it wise to admit another fact-finding delegation into the country. However, even if such steps have been taken successfully, there will still be no guarantee that future visitors will not learn the details of the recent goings-on through their friends and relatives. It seems certain, therefore, that it will be a very long time—if indeed ever—before another official delegation from exile finds itself in Tibet.