Almost one month has gone since the protests have erupted in Lhasa and other adjoining Chinese provinces. Irrespective of the Chinese insistence that these uprisings are its internal affairs, reverberations are global. The Chinese embarrassment has only quantified, as Beijing is the host of 2008 Olympics. The Olympic torch traversing various parts of the globe is facing demonstrations not only from the Tibetan diaspora settled abroad but from the supporters of the Tibetan cause as well.

The situation is still in a flux, and opinions covering both ends of the spectrum are consistently appearing in the Indian media. Diverge opinions in fact reestablish the nature of Indian democracy, which encourage debate and dissent. A consensus is emerging from the ongoing 'cacophony' and 'clamour' that the recent developments do necessitate that the 'rise' of China should be followed more minutely ever before and especially beyond the Olympics. In order to do so, it would be interesting to dissect the Indian discourse on the latest developments.

The Indian discourse in the last one month could be broadly divided into two camps. The first is the group of strategic analysts and 'chatty think-tankers' who have been advocating a 'hard-line' approach vis-à-vis China in the aftermath of the crackdown on the Tibetan protestors as well as its sabre-rattling against whosoever supporting a dialogue between the China and the Tibetan rebels. The strategic community wants the Indian government to take stances corresponding to the present reality and India's growing stature. The other group is ideologically inspired. who argue that the demonstrations in Lhasa and throughout the world are primarily meant to embarrass China on the eve of the Olympics. Also, China has been facing a myriad of problems, and therefore 'a peaceful and stable external environment' is imperative for its leadership. India should not sacrifice its friendly relations with China by supporting the Tibetans. In this discourse there are some nuances and shades, which could also be addressed later.

The most important issue that needs to be addressed is whether the demonstrations in Lhasa were totally unexpected. The Tibetan organisers announced well in advance that they would commemorate the 49th anniversary of the Khampa uprising whose suppression resulted in the Dalai Lama taking refuge in India. The Chinese leadership by design or default chose to ignore the call of the Tibetans or they were totally ignorant of the underlying discontent in Tibet. It is also to examine whether the Chinese leadership have deliberately put Tibet and Mount Everest on the itinerary of the Olympic Torch to provoke the Tibetans who revere the Mount Everest as a divine abode. The Indian establishment is also warned not to make political profit from the recent developments in Tibet because India has also been facing 'similar' problems namely in Kashmir. This kind of 'apple-orange' comparison is tendentious. It must be highlighted again that comparing Tibet and Kashmir would be a severe disservice to the memory of Indian soldiers who have laid down their lives to secure an area, which if not controlled could have become another failed region and a training ground of international terrorism in the sub-continent.

Some nuanced approaches are also recognisable but still some questions remain. For instance, the Dalai Lama is a respected religious leader but he should not indulge in politics. It means that till the philosophy of the Dalai Lama would act as solace for the consumerism-fatigued affluent people in India and the West; till some coffee-table books on him adore the drawing rooms outside Tibet; till his teachings are circulated in the web amongst the tech-savvy professionals, he is perfectly right. However, the moment he talks about Tibet, must he carry 'the heart of a beast'? We are also reminded of the importance of the distinction "between the city and the country" while the cities remain peaceful and the countries wedge war. Even if it is assumed that the Olympics are awarded to a city not to a country, did Beijing really qualify? If the Olympics are meant to celebrate the youth, our memory would still not betray us that it was the Tiananmen Square in Beijing where students were crushed in 1989. Some foresee an Asian century where both India and China would be the natural partners, however skeptics would question whether the Asian century would be built totally in Chinese terms.

It is also not that the global community has suddenly discovered the human rights abuses by the Chinese in mid-March. The European Parliament has adopted a resolution in December last year in which it urged 'China to stop its ongoing support for the regime in Myanmar and the situation in Darfur'. The latest European Parliament resolution on Tibet has infuriated the Chinese but undeniable is the fact that the European Parliament has the largest electorate in the world. Given its democratic, multi-national nature, the European Parliament is only comparable to India. The European Parliament has only transmitted the voice of the protests, which we have experienced on European streets. Interestingly a recent opinion poll conducted in five major European countries found that thirty five percent of Europeans consider China as the biggest threat to global security.

The most convincing point being underlined is that China has enormous foreign reserve; it is buying units everywhere in the world and thus helping the economies under threat. So high is the stake that no one - not even the sole superpower- would afford to displease a rising China. However some, in sheer 'arrogance', might pose the following questions: So what if China is rising? Should the whole world hold its breath and experience with 'shock and awe' that a new power is arriving at the global stage? Should the rise of China mean that the minorities in its periphery would eventually accept the oblivion of their cultural and other rights in the name of 'national unity'? And the most uncomfortable one, should raising the issues like human rights violations in China, freedom of speech etc., in the international fora and media would always invite Chinese displeasure in such unsavoury terms?

These obvious questions would repeatedly arise in the public discourse not only in India but throughout the world beyond the Olympics. Consistent observation and continuous analyses of Chinese stands on various issues and its relations with other regional and global players is therefore extremely necessary. It is also imperative that the 'rise' of China should also be deconstructed and critically examined to find out if any myth is indeed embedded in the whole narrative. Like India has been continuously deliberating the Indo-US nuclear deal, the various facets of Indo-US strategic partnership, Sino-Indian relations and the role of China in the world should be discussed threadbare. Without any informed debate, an overstated interpretation may cloud the visions of the policy makers. In this process, we must also remember that no policy is sacrosanct if the regional security is perennially threatened because of unresolved issues. Intellectual chatting by the think-tankers is in anyway more democratic than ideological genuflection.

The author is Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. The views expressed here are personal. He can be contacted at
alok.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com.