The Organisation for Research on China and Asia (ORCA) in collaboration with the U.S-based NGO 108 Peace Institute successfully co-hosting high level panel discussions on the theme of "Tibet's Crossroads: Global Stakeholders and the Succession Imperative". The event was held on 23rd May 2025 from 9:30 AM to 1:00 PM (IST) at the Lecture Room II (Basement, Annexe), India International Centre (IIC).
CONCEPT NOTE
This event, takes as its point of departure our Special Paper titled “The Dalai Lama’s Succession: Strategic Realities of the Tibet Question”, co-edited by Dr. Jagannath Panda (Stockholm Centre for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs, ISDP) and Ms. Eerishika Pankaj (Director, Organisation for Research on China and Asia – ORCA) published in May 2023. The publication has garnered international attention for its timely analysis and multidimensional exploration of the strategic stakes surrounding the Dalai Lama’s eventual succession. Against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical contestation, deteriorating Sino-Western relations, and intensifying concerns over cultural and religious freedoms within the PRC, the issue of Tibet re-emerges not merely as a regional flashpoint but as a litmus test of normative global governance. With the 90th birthday of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama approaching in July, there is renewed scholarly and policy interest in the long-term trajectory of the Tibet question. The goal is not only to reflect upon the current state of affairs but also to extrapolate future scenarios and policy implications for the region and beyond.
Panel 1: “From Dharamshala to Beijing: The Diplomatic Calculus of the Dalai Lama’s Successor”
Ms. Eerishika Pankaj opened the first panel by framing the succession as a geopolitical issue, not just a religious one. She emphasized Beijing’s strategy to control the reincarnation process as part of its broader effort to assert authority over Tibet, risking legitimacy both domestically and internationally. Ms. Pankaj highlighted India’s crucial role, as the Dalai Lama lives there and the next reincarnation is likely to emerge from its Tibetan exile community. India’s stance reflects its democratic values and cultural openness, despite tensions with China. She also noted the Dalai Lama’s cultural and spiritual importance in the Himalayas, making his succession significant beyond diplomacy. In conclusion, she stressed the lack of international coordination on the issue, while suggesting India could play a leading regional role.
Dr. Swati Chawla began by critiquing the overemphasis on the Dalai Lama’s succession, arguing it often overlooks his ethical and philosophical teachings. As a historian, she questioned the narrow geographic framing of the debate, noting the exclusion of regions like Ladakh, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Nepal, areas deeply tied to Tibetan Buddhism. She warned against reducing the Dalai Lama to a geopolitical symbol, emphasizing his role in fostering educational and religious institutions, such as Tibetan Children’s Villages and the female monastic tradition had never ceased to exist, but it has strengthened through curricular and other innovations, such as the Geshema degree, in exile. Dr. Chawla stressed that succession involves not just legitimacy, but the continuity of a shared Himalayan civilizational heritage. She warned that a politically imposed successor would likely face resistance from communities with their own spiritual stakes in the process. Citing the Dalai Lama’s writings, she noted his belief that Tibetans should decide the future of the institution and that, if it continues, his successor should be born in a “free world” free of state coercion. She closed by highlighting the Dalai Lama’s gratitude toward India as a call for India to maintain its support for Tibetans with both moral clarity and diplomatic care.
Mr. Ratish Mehta emphasized that the Dalai Lama’s succession is not just a spiritual matter but one also with serious diplomatic, security, and regional implications, especially for India. He noted that China’s efforts to control the process makes the issue central to India-China relations and regional stability. While India has historically balanced support for Tibetan culture with diplomatic caution, this balance may be tested if competing successors emerge, one endorsed by Tibetan tradition and another by Beijing. He stressed that how India responds, whether through recognition or subtle support, will carry significant diplomatic weight and must align with its constitutional principles of non-interference in religious matters. Mr. Mehta also called for a proactive, coherent policy to manage the succession process, engaging both domestic and international stakeholders. He highlighted that while many consider the unpredictibility of the sucession imperetive to be a challenge, it is rather the predictibility of Beijing's actions that should guide policy preparedness instead of hesitation. He concluded that the succession is not just about Tibetan leadership but also a broader test of how states uphold autonomy, belief, and legitimacy in a shifting global order.
Dr. Apa Lhamo opened by acknowledging the discomfort many Tibetans feel discussing the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation while he is still alive. She noted the irony of a sacred tradition becoming a geopolitical tool, especially through China’s efforts to control the process. Central to this is Order No. 5, which gives the Chinese state authority over the reincarnation of influential religious figures. Dr. Lhamo detailed China's growing influence through surveillance, covert meetings, and the promotion of its own Panchen Lama, Gyaltsen Norbu, who, despite state backing, lacks spiritual legitimacy among Tibetans. She highlighted his conspicuous absence after the recent earthquake in Shigatse as a sign of this mistrust. Internationally, China is also working to shape global opinion through Buddhist forums and outreach programs promoting its narrative on reincarnation. In conclusion, Dr. Lhamo argued that China is executing a dual strategy, domestically and internationally, to politicize a spiritual tradition and shape both the narrative and outcome of the succession, with far-reaching cultural and diplomatic consequences.
In her closing remarks, Ms. Pankaj reiterated the geopolitical stakes for India. Should there be two Dalai Lama's, with one by Beijing and the other selected by the current Dalai Lama, she highlighted the potential of rising tensions along the India-China border as China would push for recognition of its selection. She recommended that there should be a greater policy understanding between democratic nations to deal with the succession process via proactive international engagement on the topic to prevent destabilization in the region and bilateral tensions with China.
Panel 2: “Beyond the 14th: Strategic Stakes in the Dalai Lama Succession Debate”
Prof. S.D. Muni opened the second panel by framing two key questions for the discussion: how the succession of the 14th Dalai Lama might unfold in today’s geopolitical context, and what the implications will be thereafter. He suggested that the world may witness two claimants to the title of the 15th Dalai Lama—one sanctioned by the Chinese state, and another recognized through a broader consensus within the Tibetan exile community. While the former may carry official endorsement, Prof. Muni argued that the latter is more likely to command moral and spiritual legitimacy beyond state boundaries.
Prof. Bali Deepak offered insights from the Chinese perspective, referencing the 14th Dalai Lama’s own acknowledgment of the possibility of a dual succession, along with China’s responses rooted in rituals and historical conventions, legal instruments, and the consolidation of political authority in Tibet in the new era. He also highlighted an alternative view from Chinese scholars that recognizes Tibet's unique historical identity, urges an end to the vilification of the Dalai Lama, challenges the portrayal of Tibetan culture as regressive, and advocates for the development of a robust discourse both within and beyond Tibet by leveraging the role of the 11th Panchen Lama and shaping the narrative around the 15th reincarnation. While some of these views may not reflect mainstream Chinese policy, Prof. Deepak highlighted them to illustrate the range of internal discourse surrounding Tibet. He emphasized that under Xi Jinping’s leadership, China has made the Dalai Lama succession a high strategic priority, positioning it within its broader ideological agenda. China is investing long-term efforts to ensure control over the reincarnation, reflecting the significance it places on the institution’s future.
Mr. Kalpit Mankikar began by emphasizing that the question of the Dalai Lama’s succession has brought Tibet back to the center of international attention. He pointed to recent developments, such as the U.S. congressional delegation’s visit to Dharamshala and the passage of the Tibet Resolve Act, as signals of renewed global interest. The Act urges China to engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama, pushes back against Chinese disinformation, and calls for multilateral efforts toward a peaceful resolution. Significantly, it also asserts that Tibet was never historically part of China, marking a notable shift in U.S. policy. Mr. Mankikar also observed that India’s posture on Tibet has become more assertive over the past decade. Key indicators include the invitation extended to Tibetan leadership during Prime Minister Modi’s 2014 swearing-in and the deployment of the Tibetan Special Frontier Force during the 2020 border tensions. However, he cautioned that the durability of this focus, particularly from India and the U.S, remains uncertain, given evolving political calculations and broader shifts in China policy.
Prof. Nimmi Kurian approached the issue from a broader, long-term perspective. She posed three key questions: Can the Dalai Lama’s moral authority transfer to a successor? What happens to the Tibetan movement without a unifying figure? And are we focusing too narrowly on political succession? She emphasized that the Tibetan issue should be viewed through the lens of evolving identity, not just geopolitics. India, she argued, is uniquely positioned to play a constructive role due to its long-standing relationship with the Dalai Lama, its hosting of the exile community, and its support for Tibetan culture through non-intrusive means. India could serve as a neutral convening space for Tibetan voices and offer an ideological counterbalance to China’s narrative. She outlined two possible futures for Tibet: one of centralized control and cultural conformity, and another of pluralism and cultural resilience. India, she asserted, must support the latter. Prof. Kurian also warned against using terms like the “Tibet card” or reducing the Dalai Lama to a strategic tool. Such framing turns Tibet into a passive subject of great-power politics and silences Tibetan agency. Instead, she called for recognizing Tibet’s historical role as a regional connector in Asia and restoring its voice in contemporary discourse.
Prof. Muni, in his concluding remarks, returned to India’s position, praising its humanitarian role in sheltering the Tibetan community and preserving their culture. However, he criticized India’s reluctance to engage more assertively on the international stage. While China actively raises issues like Kashmir globally, India rarely does so with Tibet, reflecting a cautious diplomacy that limits its influence on the issue. Prof. Muni stressed that without closing the gap between moral support and strategic engagement, India risks limiting its capacity to shape Tibet’s future.
The report is prepared by ORCA's research interns, Yuvraj Sindhwani and Vidisha Jain.