Tibet’s Future, Beijing’s Dilemma

A jittery China ramps up its attacks on the Dalai Lama ahead of his 90th birthday.

For years, China has oscillated between portraying the Dalai Lama as an irrelevant relic of Tibet’s past and a dangerous ‘splittist’ who threatens its territorial integrity. But as the Tibetan spiritual leader nears his 90th birthday, Beijing appears to be growing increasingly anxious. A recent barrage of state-sponsored propaganda, spearheaded by China Global Television Network (CGTN), marks a notable escalation in its rhetorical offensive against the exiled Tibetan leader. The timing and tenor of these attacks reveal a deeper concern of the unresolved question of the Dalai Lama’s succession and China’s faltering grip on the narrative surrounding Tibet.

The Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, taking refuge in India. Over the decades, he has advocated for Tibet’s autonomy through his ‘Middle Way’ approach, which concedes that Tibet could remain part of China while securing genuine autonomy for its people. For a time, Beijing appeared to tolerate this stance.

Now, the latest barrage against the Dalai Lama comes from CGTN, China’s state-run English-language network, which recently released a flurry of articles and videos condemning him as a Western-backed separatist. Beijing had, in recent years, moderated its rhetoric, possibly in the hope that the Tibetan leader’s middle path approach, which accepts Tibet’s place within China while advocating for genuine autonomy, could be used to its advantage. That line of thinking appears to have been abandoned. The CGTN’s campaign is directed at an international audience, suggesting that China is no longer confident that its grip on the Tibet narrative is unchallenged.

China’s insistence that Tibet was ‘peacefully liberated’ in 1951 contradicts the historical record. In reality, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet in 1950 and imposed the infamous Seventeen Point Agreement under duress. By 1959, growing discontent led to mass protests in Lhasa, culminating in the Dalai Lama’s flight to India. The Chinese state claims that the rebellion was orchestrated by a self-serving elite to preserve their privileges, but contemporary accounts tell a different story.

Beijing’s renewed hostility coincides with speculation over the Dalai Lama’s successor. In 2011, the Tibetan leader stated that he would clarify the future of his reincarnation when he turned 90. With that milestone approaching in July 2025, the Tibetan government-in-exile (Central Tibetan Administration, or CTA) has begun preparations for the Dalai Lama’s birthday celebrations. There is widespread speculation that he may soon make a major announcement on his succession, potentially identifying his reincarnation outside Chinese control.

China is desperate to prevent this. It has long asserted its right to oversee the Dalai Lama’s succession, even passing regulations in 2007 declaring that reincarnations of ‘living Buddhas’ must receive state approval. But Beijing’s claims are rooted in political expediency rather than religious legitimacy. Tibetans overwhelmingly reject China’s interference in their spiritual traditions, and should the Dalai Lama name a successor outside Tibet, Beijing’s attempt to install its own puppet figure will likely fail to gain credibility.

Adding to Beijing’s discomfort is India’s growing assertion along its Himalayan frontier. The deadly border clash in eastern Ladakh in 2020 exposed China’s military vulnerabilities while spurring India to accelerate infrastructure development in its border regions. Moreover, China’s push for the ‘sinization’ of Tibetan Buddhism has only reinforced Tibetans’ spiritual and cultural connections with India, where Tibetan Buddhism continues to thrive.

China’s attempts to delegitimize the Dalai Lama have done little to dent his moral authority. Even without formal support from world governments wary of antagonizing Beijing, his standing among Tibetans remains formidable.

Beijing’s aggressive posture suggests it is bracing for a future where it has no control over the Dalai Lama’s succession, and by extension, Tibet’s spiritual and cultural identity. The question is no longer whether China can suppress the Dalai Lama’s influence but rather how it will respond when the next chapter in Tibet’s struggle is written beyond its reach.