The recent trip of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the USA for knee treatment has once again brought to the forefront the contentious issue of his reincarnation, an issue that lies at the heart of the ongoing struggle between Tibetan spiritual traditions and Chinese political ambitions. The Chinese government’s attempts to control the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, much like their actions regarding the Panchen Lama, reveal a deeply hypocritical stance that seeks to undermine Tibetan identity and religious freedom.
On May 14, 1995, His Holiness the Dalai Lama officially recognized a young boy from Nagqu, Tibet Autonomous Region, as the reincarnation of the 10th Panchen Lama. The very next day, the Chinese government declared this recognition illegal and, on May 17, abducted the boy and his family. To this day, their whereabouts remain unknown. This event starkly illustrates China’s willingness to interfere in Tibetan religious practices for political ends.
In November 1995, China appointed Gyaltsen Norbu as the 11th Panchen Lama, a move widely criticized and rejected by Tibetans. This appointment was part of a broader strategy to control Tibetan Buddhism and suppress dissent. As Chinese authorities have consistently stated, “The reincarnation of living Buddhas, including the Dalai Lama, should abide by national laws and regulations and follow religious rituals and historical customs” (Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang, April 10, 2019).
China’s stance on the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation is fraught with contradictions. Mao Zedong famously stated, “Religion is poison,” reflecting the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) atheist foundations. Despite this, the CCP now insists on controlling Tibetan Buddhist practices. The “Regulations on Religious Affairs” and the “Regulations on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism” are legal instruments used to justify this control.
Zhu Weiqun, a prominent Chinese official, has repeatedly emphasized that the Dalai Lama must “fundamentally reflect on and thoroughly correct his political views” for any dialogue to resume (June 20, 2024). Such statements expose the political motives behind China’s interference in religious matters, aiming to replace the Dalai Lama with a state-approved figure who would promote the CCP’s agenda.
The Dalai Lama has made it clear that his reincarnation will not be found under Chinese control. He stated, “If Tibet is not free, there will be no Dalai Lama reincarnation in Chinese-controlled territory.” This stance is crucial for preserving the integrity of Tibetan Buddhism and resisting Chinese attempts to co-opt its spiritual leaders.
The Tibetan community, supported by international bodies and human rights organizations, continues to resist China’s interference. The enforced disappearance of the legitimate Panchen Lama and the appointment of a Chinese-backed substitute are seen as part of a broader strategy to undermine Tibetan identity.
The Dalai Lama is not just a religious leader but a global symbol of peace, compassion, and non-violence. His teachings transcend national boundaries and offer a beacon of hope in a world often fraught with conflict. Ensuring that his reincarnation remains free from political manipulation is essential for maintaining the spiritual and cultural heritage of Tibetan Buddhism.
As the Dalai Lama himself has said, “Reincarnation is a phenomenon which should take place either through the voluntary choice of the concerned person or at least on the strength of his or her karma, merit, and prayers.” The interference of a state apparatus in such a deeply spiritual process is not only unethical but also inhumane.
The Dalai Lama’s recent trip to the USA and his ongoing health concerns highlight the urgency of addressing the reincarnation dispute. The Chinese government’s attempts to control this process are a direct attack on Tibetan identity and religious freedom. The global community must recognize the importance of this issue and stand in solidarity with Tibetans in their fight for spiritual and cultural autonomy.
