DHARAMSHALA: The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in exile mounted a sharp critique of China’s Ethnic Unity Law, scheduled to come into force on July 1, with Tibetan political leaders, policy experts and academics arguing that the legislation could have far-reaching implications for Tibetan identity, language, religion and culture.
The concerns were voiced during a panel discussion organised by the Tibetan Policy Institute, the CTA’s research and policy wing, just days before the law is due to take effect.
Delivering the keynote address, Sikyong Penpa Tsering, the democratically elected political leader of the Tibetan people and head of the CTA, alleged that the legislation formally embeds policies of assimilation that, according to the administration-in-exile, have been implemented in Tibet over several decades. He argued that the law seeks to institutionalise these measures through a legal framework while presenting them as measures to promote national unity.
Penpa Tsering further contended that the legislation could affect not only Tibetans but also other ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs and Mongolians. He reiterated the CTA’s position that the law is inconsistent with international human rights standards and contradicts constitutional guarantees and regional ethnic autonomy provisions within China’s own legal framework.
Recalling that the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile had earlier adopted a resolution rejecting the legislation, he said the administration continued to advocate the Middle Way Approach, which seeks genuine autonomy for Tibet within the framework of the Chinese Constitution through dialogue rather than confrontation.
Among other distinguished speakers, Major General (Dr.) Gagan Deep Bakshi, SM, VSM (Retd.), offered a comparative perspective on the civilisational outlook of the two Asian giants.
He noted, “If we examine the civilisational context, Indian civilisation is characterised by its tolerance and its encouragement of diversity. In contrast, Chinese civilisation is often characterised by a tendency toward homogenisation and the enforcement of uniformity in language, culture, and social norms.”
He further observed that India’s pluralistic ethos is deeply rooted in traditions such as the teachings of the Buddha. Expressing concern, he remarked on how unsettling it is that the China’s Ethic Unity Law appear aimed at diminishing the country’s rich cultural and linguistic diversity.
The retired Major General also highlighted concerns regarding China’s long-arm influence and its capacity for transnational repression, particularly through the United Front Work Department, in advancing its objectives beyond its national borders.
The President of the Delhi-based Centre for China Analysis & Strategy, Jayadeva Ranade, spoke about the key figure behind the new law. He noted that Chinese President Xi Jinping, coming from a “princeling” background, is well aware of how power operates within the Communist system. According to him, it is largely during Xi’s tenure that ethnic minorities in China have gradually seen erosion of their ability to preserve their distinct cultural and traditional identities.
He further observed that representation of ethnic minority members within the party leadership and the broader state apparatus has steadily diminished over time under Xi.
Dr. Tenzin Desal, a research fellow at the Tibet Policy Institute, spoke about China’s inability to tolerate internal diversity as an indicator of shortcomings in its nation-building process, despite its widely acknowledged achievements in state-building through large-scale infrastructure development.
Speaking specifically about Tibet, he noted that although China claims significant progress in governance and development in the region, it has nevertheless failed to foster a sense of belonging among Tibetans, owing to what he described as restrictive policies and long-standing patterns of repression.
Delivering the concluding remarks, Srikanth Kondapalli, Professor of Chinese Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, spoke about how the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, along with various regional ethnic autonomy laws, provides for minority rights and special provisions. However, he noted that the implementation of these provisions often diverges significantly from their stated intent, resulting in widespread disappointment among minority communities due to largely unfulfilled promises.
The discussion was moderated throughout its sessions by the Deputy Director of the Tibetan Policy Institute, Tempa Gyaltsen Zamlha.
