He is in exile in India. And he should have his right. India can't commit another human rights abuse on an already wronged people. You are protecting them, yes. They should be grateful to you, yes. But that doesn't give you the right to commit another abuse on them.

If demonstrators are gathering, it is their right in a democratic country. If it is non-violent and peaceful, you should allow that. The main thing for India is not to become another China for the Tibetans. If India also gets into harsh crackdown, then there won't be any difference between India and China for the Tibetans.

If India allows Chinese security to guard the torch on its territory, what will its implications be?

The United States allowed it. It is a question of sovereignty. Each country has a security apparatus. The US thought its security was not enough. But having Chinese security for the torch can aggravate the situation. Japan and Australia, I read, have declined the proposal. Whether India wants to show if they are sovereign is their call.

Again, how much of what India does about the issue will affect its ties with China?

You know, it is India's decision. If they did not think about speaking out against Pakistan's human rights violations in Baluchistan, and violations in Africa in those days, why should they think now?

If you do not speak now, then you can't speak about anything. You pretty much have to close your mouth. You can't be selective in looking the other way. You can't pick a country to go after and then keep quiet against another country. You can't have two foreign policies. You should maintain same standards. If you think it is going to complicate the situation in this case, other people can argue the same way.

Image: The Dalai Lama during a press conference to discuss Sino-Tibet relations, recent demonstrations and the Beijing Olympics on April 13, in Seattle, Washington. Photograph: Stephen Brashear/Getty Images

Also read: The radicalisation of Tibetan youth

Back

|

Next