With the Dalai Lama’s 90th birthday less than a year away, China is struggling to control the narrative regarding his succession.
The facts are quite clear: Tibetan Buddhists have their own centuries-old methods for identifying reincarnate lamas, and international standards on human rights state that freedom of religious belief includes the right to “train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate leaders.”
The current Dalai Lama laid out his reasoning on this topic back in 2011, issuing a statement that reviewed the history of reincarnate lama lineages, raised several possibilities for how his successor could be found, and closed with a plan for how this question would be resolved:
When I am about ninety I will consult the high Lamas of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Tibetan public, and other concerned people who follow Tibetan Buddhism, and re-evaluate whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not. On that basis we will take a decision. If it is decided that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama should continue and there is a need for the Fifteenth Dalai Lama to be recognized, responsibility for doing so will primarily rest on the concerned officers of the Dalai Lama’s Gaden Phodrang Trust… I shall leave clear written instructions about this. Bear in mind that, apart from the reincarnation recognized through such legitimate methods, no recognition or acceptance should be given to a candidate chosen for political ends by anyone, including those in the People’s Republic of China.
This reasoning has been embraced by many around the world; in the United States, the Tibetan Policy and Support Act tasked the State Department with establishing international diplomatic coalitions to “oppose any effort by the Government of the People’s Republic of China to identify or install Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders in a manner inconsistent with the established religious practice and system of Tibetan Buddhism” and “ensure that the identification and installation of Tibetan Buddhist religious leaders, including a future 15th Dalai Lama, is determined solely within the Tibetan Buddhist faith community, in accordance with the universally recognized right to religious freedom.”
China’s abduction of the Panchen Lama at the age of six and his two decades of enforced disappearance since then undoubtedly set the stage for this dispute. By kidnapping a child, Beijing clearly showed the world what religious freedom with Chinese characteristics entails.
A new spin on an old classic
If Tibetans, the United States, and others favor respecting Tibetan Buddhist tradition and compliance with human rights standards, how does Beijing justify its claim to authority over the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation? China, after all, maintains a rhetorical opposition to imperialism, always portraying itself as a victim of foreign domination and never a perpetrator; problems in Tibet are always caused by “outside foreign forces,” and are never a consequence of China’s brutal occupation of the Tibetan nation.
Typically, Beijing justifies this interference with misleading interpretations of history that often center on an artifact known as the Golden Urn. Earlier this year, for example, a Chinese state media broadcast referred to the use of the Golden Urn as “the most pivotal step” in recognizing a reincarnate lama, a claim that does not stand up to scrutiny.
I was interested to see that Lhajam Gyal (Ch: Laxianjia), a deputy director of the Institute of Religion at the China Tibetology Research Center (CTRC), recently offered an alternate justification. At an All-China Journalists Association meeting he spoke on this issue, saying:
“Although the Dalai Lama is currently outside China, his reincarnation is still part of the [Tibetan Buddhist] Gelug tradition and under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government, as most temples are located within China.”
The CTRC is a government-founded institute that frequently serves as a mouthpiece to defend Chinese rule in Tibet, and so it’s interesting to see a senior staffer there provide a different reason for Beijing’s interference in Tibetan Buddhism. The idea that the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation is under the jurisdiction of the Chinese government because of the location of Tibetan Buddhist temples (hereafter Lhajam’s Rule) strikes me as quite flimsy, however, and it immediately fills me with more questions.
Would Lhajam Gyal, the CTRC, and the CCP agree that according to Lhajam’s Rule jurisdiction over reincarnation passed out of Beijing’s hands during the Cultural Revolution, when almost all Tibetan Buddhist sites in the PRC were shuttered? Tibetan Buddhist communities are indigenous to Nepal, India, Bhutan, Mongolia, and parts of Russia; perhaps the CTRC could tally up their temples and see which nation gained jurisdiction over reincarnation during this period. It would also be helpful if they studied the reopening of Tibetan Buddhist temples in the PRC following Mao’s death in order to establish when jurisdiction over reincarnation returned to Beijing.
I also wonder if Lhajam’s Rule was in effect during the time of Tibet’s undisputed independence following the collapse of the Qing dynasty. Four of the six major Gelug monasteries lay within the territory of the Ganden Phodrang state, far from the control of the Republic of China. The standard CCP line is that China was still in charge of the reincarnation of the 14th Dalai Lama, which took place during this time, but Lhajam’s Rule would appear to disagree.
Relying on the location of temples also seems to leave Lhajam’s Rule with easily-exploitable loopholes. Many Tibetans now live far from the Land of Snows; could they go on a temple-building spree and give jurisdiction over reincarnation to another country? India seems like a natural choice, with a number of historic Tibetan monasteries in places like Ladakh and new Tibetan refugee colonies established all over the country. Would the CTRC be willing to certify that the Indian government has the exclusive power to confirm reincarnations after constructing the requisite number of temples?
Finally, I must ask why Lhajam’s Rule is applied solely to Tibetan Buddhism and not to other faiths. Beijing has repeatedly claimed the authority to select Catholic bishops for churches in China over the Pope’s objections, but Italy has a far greater number of Catholic churches; shouldn’t Beijing agree that the Italians have a natural authority on this matter and condemn their own interference?
A thankless task
Lhajam’s Rule is silly, but it isn’t much sillier than the spectacle of a self-professed atheist state claiming the power to recognize reincarnations. In the end, China’s arguments about the Golden Urn and the location of temples are both attempts to put a rhetorical fig leaf over the naked reality: China has occupied Tibet, and has decided that it therefore owns Tibetan Buddhism, a faith that was historically practiced in a half dozen countries and has now spread around the world.
Lhajam Gyal apparently has a reputation for being a talented writer, but his job at CTRC is coming up with justifications for China’s repression of Tibetan Buddhism even if they’re half-baked. It’s enough to make you feel a degree of second-hand embarrassment for him – if you can overcome the distastefulness of someone offering these arguments in support of the policies of a government that kidnapped one of his fellow Tibetans at the age of six.
All things considered, I do have a certain amount of appreciation for Lhajam’s Rule. Beijing’s false claims about the Golden Urn have been repeated ad nauseum, and it’s nice to have someone make the effort to come up with something new – particularly when it’s such a peculiar argument. If the CTRC isn’t capable of telling the truth about Tibetan Buddhism then I hope they will keep inventing new claims; perhaps the next one will be a winner.
