Dalai Lama turns 90 and vows to keep defying China for years
The Nobel laureate is regarded as one of the world's most influential religious leaders, with a following that extends well beyond Buddhism, but not by Beijing which calls him a separatist and has sought to bring the faith under its control.
Fleeing his native Tibet in 1959 in the wake of a failed uprising against Chinese rule, the 14th Dalai Lama along with hundreds of thousands of Tibetans took shelter in India and has since advocated for a peaceful "Middle Way" to seek autonomy and religious freedom for the Tibetan people.
Thousands of followers from around the world, celebrities, and officials from the United States and India, will attend his birthday celebrations in Dharamshala, the small Indian town in the foothills of the Himalayas where the Dalai Lama lives.
During the celebrations, which will include cultural performances and remarks by long-time follower and Hollywood star Richard Gere as well as federal Indian ministers, the Dalai Lama is scheduled to deliver a speech.
In a birthday message on his website on Sunday, the Dalai Lama said he was "just a simple Buddhist monk" and that he will continue to focus on his commitments of promoting human values and religious harmony.
Global leaders sent well-wishes, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
"I join 1.4 billion Indians in extending our warmest wishes to His Holiness the Dalai Lama on his 90th birthday. He has been an enduring symbol of love, compassion, patience and moral discipline," Modi wrote on X.
Rubio said the Dalai Lama continued to inspire people by embodying a message of "unity, peace, and compassion."
"The United States remains firmly committed to promoting respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Tibetans. We support efforts to preserve Tibetans' distinct linguistic, cultural, and religious heritage, including their ability to freely choose and venerate religious leaders without interference," he said, according to a State Department readout.
The preceding week of celebrations was particularly important for Tibetan Buddhists as the Dalai Lama had previously mentioned that he would speak about his succession at his 90th birthday.
On Wednesday, he allayed their concerns about the future of the institution of the Dalai Lama by saying that he would reincarnate as the leader of the faith upon his death and that his non-profit institution, the Gaden Phodrang Trust, had the sole authority to recognize his successor.
China has said that the succession will have to be approved by its leaders.
The United States, which is seeking to counter the rise of China, has called on Beijing to cease what it describes as interference in the succession of the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhist lamas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Nikkei Asia
2 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
India eyes bigger BRICS clout as Xi, Putin skip Brazil summit
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi take the center positions during the July 6 photo event at the BRICS summit in Brazil. © Reuters SATOSHI IWAKI RIO DE JANEIRO -- With the leaders of China and Russia absent from this year's BRICS summit, India sees an opportunity to take the initiative and expand its influence within the group of emerging markets. In a speech delivered on the summit's opening day Sunday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi underscored how BRICS was formed to represent the developing world.
Nikkei Asia
3 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
Trump imposes 25% tariffs on Japan, South Korea
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks on his "Liberation Day" tariffs at the White House on April 2. © Reuters KEN MORIYASU WASHINGTON -- U.S. President Donald Trump released the first batch of letters, to allies Japan and South Korea, notifying them of the terms of trade with America going forward. The president noted that goods from the two countries will be charged 25% tariffs, respectively. The 25% rate marks a one-point increase for Japan from the initially announced "reciprocal" tariff on April 2, and the same rate for South Korea.
The Diplomat
5 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Who Won the 100-hour War? Pakistan or India?
The government of India continues to field awkward questions about whether the Indian Air Force (IAF) won or lost the 100-hour war that it launched against the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) on May 7. In a mission that was designated Operation Sindoor, IAF combat aircraft were launched at terrorist targets inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, two weeks after a group of Pakistan-backed terrorists gunned down 26 tourists in Pahalgam – a resort in the disputed province of Kashmir. With the Indian public seething and demanding retaliation, the IAF launched punitive air strikes on May 7, relying on its fighter aircraft and BrahMos missiles. At the end of four days of fighting, it was Pakistan that was claiming victory, arguing that it had shot down six IAF fighter jets without any losses of its own. The IAF accepted losing a small number of combat aircraft, but claimed that all its pilots were back home safely. Neither the IAF nor the PAF could support their claims by displaying captured pilots or aircraft wreckage. Even if they had done so, that would have indicated only that neither side's warplanes crossed the border. Instead, they minimized casualties by launching missiles and bombs from their own side of the border, inflicting damage with precision-guided munitions (PGMs), such as the BrahMos cruise missiles. Truth-telling in Jakarta The controversy over casualties bubbled over again on June 10 in Jakarta, when India's defense attaché to Indonesia, Captain Shiva Kumar of the Indian Navy, acknowledged that the IAF lost 'some aircraft' when they initially struck terrorist camps and PAF bases in mainland Pakistan under Operation Sindoor. Speaking at a seminar in Jakarta, Kumar said that the IAF reacted to its initial aircraft losses by modifying its combat tactics. Responding to a previous presenter at the seminar who referenced Pakistan's claim that India lost six aircraft, Kumar said: 'I may not agree with him that India lost so many aircraft. But, I do agree that we did lose some aircraft and that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishments and their air defenses.' In a subsequent statement, the Indian Embassy said that Kumar's 'remarks were misquoted and media reports reflect a misrepresentation of the purpose and tenor of the presentation.' The presentation was to demonstrate that 'India's Indian Armed Forces operates under civilian leadership, which is different from many other countries that are in this region. The statement also clarified that the goal for Operation Sindoor was to target the terrorist infrastructure, and that India's response was non-escalatory,' it said. Since the start of Operation Sindoor, Pakistani and Indian military experts, political leaders and the public in both countries have been apportioning victory and defeat by comparing the number of aircraft shot down by both air forces. In the circumstances, the IAF could hardly call off Operation Sindoor when its net score of Pakistani combat aircraft casualties was less than the numbers scored by the PAF. That was why the IAF, abandoning restraint, switched to pounding Pakistani military targets. The restraint was intended to drive home the message that Indian patience was limited. 'After the loss [of May 7],' explained Kumar, 'we changed our tactics and went for their military installations. We first achieved suppression of enemy air defenses [SEAD] and destruction of enemy air defenses [DEAD] and that's why all our [subsequent] attacks could easily go through using surface-to-air missiles and surface-to-surface missiles…On May 8, 9 and 10, there was complete air superiority by India.' At the seminar in Jakarta, Tommy Tamtomo, vice chairman of the Indonesia Center of Air Power Studies, cited figures that were significantly more flattering for the IAF. He said that PAF lost six fighter jets, two Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft, and a military transport plane. 'India lost a lot, but Pakistan also lost a lot. Maybe more than India,' he said at the seminar. Coming, as the statement was, from an Indonesian official, this is seen to reflect the ground reality more accurately. Indian officials also explained that the objective of Operation Sindoor was to target terrorist infrastructure, while the decision to avoid PAF infrastructure and bases was a non-escalatory measure. Earlier, India's senior-most defense official, Chief of Defense Staff General Anil Chauhan, flatly rejected the Pakistani military's claim that it had downed six IAF fighter jets. Chauhan termed the claims 'absolutely incorrect.' Lessons of Balakot In its reactions and retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack, the IAF largely followed the steps it had taken in response to the terrorist attack on February 14, 2019, when a vehicle convoy transporting Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) troopers to Kashmir was attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber near Pulwama in Kashmir. That blast, which killed 40 CRPF personnel, was owned by Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a banned terror outfit from Pakistan. In retaliation for the February 14 attack, the IAF struck a JeM terrorist camp at Balakot in Pakistan's Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province. This was the first time since the 1971 War that IAF aircraft had struck targets on Pakistani soil. However, the IAF aircraft launched their weapons from Indian airspace, so as to reduce the provocation. Like after the attack on Balakot, the IAF admitted having lost aircraft during Operation Sindoor, but declined to confirm the number of aircraft lost. Losses were attributed to the constraint imposed by India's political leadership not to attack the Pakistani military establishments and its air defenses. 'No military installations, no civil installations, nothing which was not connected to terrorists were to be targeted,' Kumar said of New Delhi's operational guidelines. The PAF's retaliation to the February 26, 2019, air strikes was prompt, coming the next day in the form of Pakistani air strikes on a range of targets in Kashmir. In the ensuing aerial battle, the IAF claimed to have shot down a Pakistani F-16 fighter aircraft while losing a MIG-21 whose pilot was captured after he ejected over Pakistani-held territory. Fortunately, an 'off-ramp' was readily available. Mediation by Washington led to the IAF pilot's repatriation within 48 hours, allowing both India and Pakistan to declare victory. For the present, India's domestic politics has overtaken military events. Accusing the Modi government of misleading Parliament, the opposition Congress Party has demanded a special session of Parliament and an all-party meeting to discuss this issue. So, who came out on top in this skirmish, India or Pakistan? From a purely tactical and operational standpoint, it would appear as if the PAF won the numbers game, downing a larger number of combat aircraft while warding off the numerically larger IAF. Yet that would be a fallacious and incomplete assessment. The Indian military demonstrated conclusively that it had no appetite for Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and that it would not hesitate to retaliate against future Pakistani transgressions with armed force. In calling off hostilities before too much damage was done, New Delhi demonstrated its awareness of its own strengths and weaknesses and the confidence of a growing power.
