![]() ICLT Homepage ICLT's "Legal Materials on Tibet"
Tibetan Asylum &
|
|
Epilogue: The Eleventh Panchen Lama
The detention of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and the PRC's subsequent installment of its own Panchen Lama, represent another attempt by the PRC to assert its sovereignty over Tibet. The apparent paradox of an officially atheist state claiming the right to control a quintessentially religious process - i.e., the rituals by which reincarnate lamas are divined and recognized in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition - can be understood, as several scholars have pointed out, in terms of the 'symbolic potency of the ceremony in demonstrating Chinese authority over Tibet.' The Panchen Lama, however, has more than symbolic importance. His abduction and displacement by a PRC-selected child embodies China's desire to use future Tibetan religious leaders, such as the Eleventh Panchen Lama (considered the second most important religious leader in the dominant Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism), to secure the political loyalty of the next generation of Tibetans. There is no question that the abduction of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima violates international law. Article 35 of the CRC prohibits 'the abduction of . . . children for any purpose or in any form.' Even if, as the PRC claims, the boy has been taken into custody for his own protection, this does not justify China's refusal to permit U.N. bodies to verify his safety. The Panchen Lama dispute is ultimately emblematic of a broader pattern of children's rights abuses in Tibet. Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was recognized, in conformity with Tibetan tradition, by the Dalai Lama. He therefore remains, in the eyes of virtually all Tibetans, the sole legitimate Panchen Lama. His literal capture and seclusion by China, and the state's campaign to displace him with its own Panchen Lama, selected and groomed to serve the PRC's political needs in Tibet, reflect China's figurative attempt to 'capture' the next generation of Tibetans - to exert control over their personal development, religious beliefs, cultural habits, ethnic identity and, most of all, political loyalty. Indeed, in the high-profile conflict over the legitimacy of the Panchen Lama, we see writ large the same theme that emerges, time and again, in the general pattern of children's rights violations in Tibet: a reckless indifference to the welfare and rights of Tibetan children that results from the state's paramount interest in political control. On to RECOMMENDATIONS -->
© copyright 1998-99, International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet
|