The naming dispute between India & China
By using Tibet, instead of the Chinese Xizang, India challenges China’s unilateral renaming.
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names carry more than mere identification; they embody history, culture, and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as Tsang Nan or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as Xizang, is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signalling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response.
Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise but a symbolic assertion of sovereignty. Such actions are provocative, touching upon the sensitive chords of territorial integrity and national identity.
India’s response, maintaining the use of the name “Tibet,” is a reaffirmation of historical and cultural recognition. By doing so, India not only challenges China’s unilateral renaming but also underscores its commitment to respecting the historical context of the region. This stance is significant, as it reflects India’s adherence to global norms and understanding, despite China’s attempts to reshape international perceptions.
The term “Sinicization” denotes the process by which non-chinese societies are influenced to adopt Chinese cultural, linguistic, and societal norms.
In Tibet’s case, this process is a deliberate effort by the Chinese government to integrate Tibetan culture into the broader Chinese cultural framework. The renaming of Tibet to “Xizang” is a facet of these Sinicization efforts, aiming to solidify China’s rule and dilute the Dalai Lama’s influence and the global recognition of the Tibetan cause.
The international community, including governments and organizations, often weighs the historical and cultural context heavily when referring to regions. Despite China’s renaming efforts, many continue to use the term “Tibet,” aligning with the established global understanding. This collective stance is crucial, as it supports the cultural and religious identity of the Tibetan people against the tide of Sinicization.
The Indian government has firmly rejected China’s attempts to rename places in Arunachal Pradesh, emphasizing that such actions do not alter the state’s status as an integral part of India. This rejection is a clear message to China and the international community that India stands firm on its territorial sovereignty.
India’s potential reciprocation, refusing to accept the name “Xizang” and instead using “Tibet,” is a powerful diplomatic gesture. It is a declaration that India does not recognize the Sinicization of Tibet and supports the region’s historical and cultural identity as known internationally.
The naming dispute between India and China over Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh is more than a war of words; it is a reflection of deeper geopolitical tensions and the struggle for cultural preservation. India’s stance, rooted in historical recognition and international law, serves as a bulwark against attempts to rewrite history and infringe upon sovereign rights.
As the situation evolves, the international community’s role in upholding these principles becomes ever more critical, ensuring that names—and the identities they represent—remain respected on the global stage.
* Khedroob Thondup is the son of Gyalo Thondup, elder brother of the Dalai Lama. Educated at St Stephens College, Delhi University and the University of San Francisco, Khedroob Thondup was Personal Assistant to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and accompanied him on his first trip in 1979 to the U.S. He was sent by the Dalai Lama to Beijing from 1980 till 1993 in dialogue talks. He interacted with Xi Jinping’s father Xi Zhongxun and Hu Jintao. He is President of the Tibetan Refugee Self Help Centre, Darjeeling since 1987.