Summary
- India’s Ministry of External Affairs distanced itself from Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju’s statement on the Dalai Lama’s successor, reiterating its neutral stance on religious matters.
- China warned India against interfering in Tibet-related issues, calling Rijiju’s comments a breach of diplomatic norms that could derail improving bilateral ties.
- India reaffirmed its position of granting the Dalai Lama religious freedom while steering clear of China’s internal sensitivities over the reincarnation process.
Between Faith and Foreign Policy: The Delhi-Dharamsala-Beijing Tightrope
As India and China cautiously navigate the post-Galwan thaw in bilateral relations, an old fault line—Tibet—has resurfaced. On July 5, 2025, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) issued a carefully worded clarification, distancing the government from Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju’s remarks on the succession of the Dalai Lama. This came hours after Beijing issued a pointed warning accusing India of interfering in its “internal affairs” and invoking Tibet’s politically charged status.
The controversy stems from Rijiju’s public endorsement of the Dalai Lama’s position that only he—and established Tibetan Buddhist conventions—can determine his reincarnation. The statement, seen by China as an affront to its tightly controlled religious apparatus, triggered a diplomatic protest. In response, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal struck a neutral tone: “The government of India does not take any position or speak on matters concerning beliefs and practices of faith and religion.”
It was a statement designed to preserve India’s doctrinal separation between church and state—but it also subtly affirmed the Dalai Lama’s agency. For a government that has often walked a fine line between upholding Tibetan autonomy and avoiding direct confrontation with China, this episode once again exposes the friction between New Delhi’s democratic values and realpolitik calculations.
India delivers a resounding rebuke to China: Only His Holiness the Dalai Lama has the sole authority to decide his successor. A bold stand for Tibetan religious freedom—rejecting Beijing’s attempts to politicize a sacred tradition. #DalaiLama90 #StandWithTibet #HandsOffTibet… pic.twitter.com/cP6yW6VugH
— Digital Citizens for Human Rights (@dc4_humanrights) July 4, 2025
Beijing’s Red Lines: Tibet as China’s Sovereignty Trigger
- China reiterated that the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation must follow the state-controlled “Golden Urn” process.
- Chinese foreign ministry warned that India’s comments could damage improving ties.
- Beijing labels the Dalai Lama a “separatist” despite his calls for internal autonomy within China.
- China’s Tibet policy remains a central test of ideological control and border sovereignty.
- India’s growing support for the Tibetan exile community is viewed as strategic leverage by Beijing.
China’s response was swift and severe. Foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning called on India to “honour its commitments on Xizang-related issues,” using the Mandarin name for Tibet. She asserted that India must be “clear about the anti-China separatist nature of the 14th Dalai Lama” and warned New Delhi to avoid comments that could “impact the improving China-India relationship.”
At the heart of this outrage lies the contested question of religious legitimacy. For Beijing, the Dalai Lama is not just a monk but a political symbol whose reincarnation process must be state-sanctioned. The insistence on the Golden Urn method—a Qing dynasty-era ritual now fused with Chinese Communist control—is part of a broader effort to domesticate religion under party oversight.
India, hosting the Dalai Lama in exile since 1959, has traditionally treaded carefully. While affirming his religious freedom, successive governments have avoided publicly endorsing the political aspects of his movement. Rijiju’s statement, however, appeared to challenge China’s claim to unilateral authority over Tibetan religious succession, striking a nerve in Beijing’s political theology.
MEA’s Neutrality Play: Recalibrating the Narrative
- The MEA clarified that India takes no official stance on religious doctrines or succession.
- India reaffirmed its commitment to religious freedom and non-interference in theological matters.
- The statement subtly repositions Rijiju’s remarks as personal, not governmental.
- It aims to de-escalate diplomatic tensions without appearing to censure the Dalai Lama.
- The framing maintains strategic ambiguity: affirming democratic norms without provoking Beijing.
The Indian government’s official response was as diplomatic as it was deliberate. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal reiterated India’s neutral position: “The government has always upheld freedom of religion for all in India and will continue to do so.” The statement walked a delicate line—affirming constitutional values while avoiding explicit endorsement of Rijiju’s remarks or the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation claim.
By positioning the comments as outside the scope of official policy, the MEA attempted a recalibration: de-escalating China’s ire without compromising on India’s foundational commitment to religious freedom. The move is also consistent with India’s broader Tibet policy—support for cultural and spiritual autonomy, but not political independence.
In doing so, New Delhi retains flexibility. It signals to China that the government is not seeking confrontation, even as it leaves space for soft-power engagement with the Tibetan diaspora and exile government in Dharamsala. This balancing act is central to India’s post-2020 border diplomacy: don’t provoke unnecessarily, but don’t abandon long-standing principles either.
Succession Politics and Strategic Leverage
- The Dalai Lama’s recent announcement reaffirmed that his reincarnation cannot be dictated by political authorities.
- India’s careful distancing keeps channels open with both Beijing and the Tibetan exile leadership.
- China fears that a non-Beijing-endorsed 15th Dalai Lama chosen outside Tibet could undermine its control.
- India could wield the reincarnation issue as strategic leverage in future border and trade talks.
- For now, the focus remains on stability and calibrated diplomatic messaging.
The Dalai Lama’s July 3 declaration about the future of his institution was unambiguous: his successor must be chosen based on spiritual tradition, not state diktats. For China, this statement represents a looming threat—one that could render its plans for a Beijing-approved 15th Dalai Lama irrelevant in the eyes of the global Tibetan Buddhist community.
India’s role in this unfolding drama is pivotal. Hosting the current Dalai Lama and housing the Central Tibetan Administration, New Delhi holds both symbolic and strategic influence over the succession debate. While India insists that it respects China’s sovereignty, its quiet support for Tibetan autonomy and democratic norms provides a counter-narrative to China’s authoritarian template.
Whether India chooses to escalate, remain neutral, or leverage the issue behind closed doors, the reincarnation dispute is no longer just about religion—it’s about regional power dynamics. As both sides inch toward normalising ties after the Galwan clashes, the spiritual politics of the Himalayas may once again become a high-altitude fault line in an already tense relationship.
The Middle Path, Once More
In responding to the Dalai Lama succession controversy, India has chosen what Buddhists would call the Middle Path: avoiding confrontation while preserving values. By affirming religious neutrality and distancing itself from ministerial overreach, New Delhi has signalled that its foreign policy remains anchored in constitutional principles—even under provocation.
China’s sharp rhetoric reveals just how sensitive it remains to the Tibet issue, even as it projects confidence on the global stage. For India, the challenge is to hold firm on democratic freedoms without undermining hard-won stability in bilateral ties.
As reincarnation politics intersect with realpolitik, India’s strategic ambiguity—carefully worded, subtly signalled, and quietly resolute—may be its most powerful diplomatic tool yet.
