Patriots from a neighboring land - The Tibetan refugee community in India

As the military stand-off with China continues in Ladakh, India has received unflinching support from Tibetan refugees - who live in India under exile. In this piece, we will discuss the historical background behind Tibetans taking refuge in India, and why their contribution to India should be rewarded, instead of being ignored or sidelined.

Historical Background

India’s decision to provide homage to Tibetans goes back to the 1950s. In 1950, China invaded and annexed the then autonomous region of Tibet. Despite resisting the invasion with valour, the Tibetan army could not match up to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China. After the invasion, China effectively coerced Tibet to sign an Agreement that would bring Tibet under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, and grant it a limited amount of regional autonomy.

After facing more than 8 years of repression from the Chinese establishment, a revolt erupted in Lhasa (the capital of the Tibetan region) in 1959. Tibetans flung the streets to protest for independence from China, and for the formation of a People’s Assembly. They also surrounded the Palace of the Tibetan God-king and spiritual leader – The 14^th Dalai Lama. This is because there was a brutal crackdown by the Chinese PLA, and the Tibetans feared that the Dalai Lama would be assassinated. On 12^th March 1959, thousands of women gathered on the streets to fight for Tibetan independence, and also approached the Indian Consulate in Lhasa to demand the help of the Indian Government. 12^th March is now recognized as Women’s Uprising Day in Tibet.

5 days later, the Chinese PLA fired 2 shells at The Dalai Lama’s Palace. This left the Dalai Lama with no choice but to prepare for an escape. At 3 AM on the next morning, the Dalai Lama and members of his family began their escape from Lhasa. The Dalai Lama disguised himself as a soldier, and was accompanied by Tibetan resistance fighters. Their goal was to safely reach the Indian border. During their journey, they caught up with other Tibetan resistance fighters who had been trained and supported by the CIA – the primary foreign intelligence agency of the United States.

The CIA-trained resistance fighters sent a radio message conveying Dalai Lama’s intention of reaching the Indian border to a US military base in Okinawa, Japan. This base had been occupied by the US during the concluding stages of World War II, and had not yet been handed back to Japan. The CIA then personally requested Prime Minister Nehru to grant asylum to The Dalai Lama, before he reaches the Indian border. After extensive deliberations within the Government, Nehru agreed, and welcomed the Dalai Lama. The Indian Government then decided to house the Dalai Lama in McLeodganj, in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh. Soon after The Dalai Lama’s escape, the revolt in Lhasa was brutally crushed by the Chinese PLA. But, despite this repression, Tibetans continue to fight for their independence from China even today.

Since 1959, The Dalai Lama has continued to reside in the Namgyal Monastery of McLeodganj, and has provided support to the struggle for Tibetan freedom. The Tibetan Parliament and government-in-exile is also based in Dharamshala, even as of today. Post India’s decision to grant asylum to The Dalai Lama, around 1 Lakh Tibetans have come to India over the years. They stay in regions such as Ladakh as refugees. As Tibetans practice Buddhism, the Tibetan refugees share cultural and ethnic similarities with the populations of Ladakh, and other Himalayan regions. While continuing to support the Tibetan demand for freedom, the Tibetan refugees have stated that they consider India as their ‘second-home’.

The 1962 India-China war and its aftermath

India’s decision to grant asylum to The Dalai Lama in 1959 came at a cost. This decision received severe backlash in the Chinese Communist Party. As Bertil Lintner points out in his book, China’s India War – Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Chairman Mao Zedong felt that India had provided tacit support to the Tibetan uprising in Lhasa. They had already made up their mind to ‘teach India a lesson’ - for granting support to the freedom movement and asylum to The Dalai Lama. This, according to Bertil Lintner, was among the prime reasons why China decided to go to war with India – when they got an opportunity in October 1962.

The war had been meticulously planned in advance, and contrary to popular belief - China did not go to war solely because it wanted to occupy Arunachal Pradesh or the Aksai Chin region, and settle the boundary dispute.

Even after India’s defeat in the 1962 war, Tibet has continued to occupy an important focal point in India and China’s military and diplomatic relations. Immediately after the war, the Indian Government set-up the Special Frontier Force (SFF), which was a covert military unit that recruited Tibetans living in exile as its soldiers.

The contribution of the Tibetan SFF and other refugees

The SFF also worked with the Indian army in the India-Pakistan war of 1971, which liberated East Pakistan to create the separate State of Bangladesh. During the 1971 War, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sent a message to the Tibetan commandos, stating that while the Indian Government could not compel them to provide assistance in the war, they should remember that the Pakistan army’s genocide against Bengalis in East Pakistan was similar to the way in which the Chinese establishment had treated the Tibetans. Soon thereafter, Operation Eagle was launched, where the Tibetan SFF commandos helped in neutralizing Pakistani positions in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and prevented Pakistan army personnel from escaping to Burma.

The role of Tibetan SFF commandos in India’s 1971 victory is an inspirational story – as they assisted India in a full-scale war even though they were only refugees, and not Indian citizens. Over the years, the SFF has taken part in covert operations in Operation Blue Star in the Golden Temple, and in the Kargil conflict. The SFF has also played a game-changing role in the current military standoff with China. They played a crucial role in India’s operation to capture certain unoccupied heights in the Chushul sector of eastern Ladakh. This operation was conducted between August 29 - 31, and as defence experts have pointed out – occupying these heights have given the Indian army a crucial advantage against the Chinese PLA.

One commando of the SFF, Subedar Nyima Tenzin also lost his life during one of these operations in eastern Ladakh. He had served in the SFF for 33 years, which highlights how members of the Tibetan refugee community have given their blood, soul and life for India, even though they only stay here as refugees. Other members of the Tibetan refugee community have also established small shops and undertakings of their own, in places like Ladakh. Amidst this standoff with China, and even otherwise, the contribution of this community should not be forgotten. India must remember the Tibetan sentiment – where members of the Tibetan refugee community staunchly consider India as their second home.

Despite the strong bond between India and the Tibetan community, the Indian Government has in the recent past tried to distance itself from the issue of Tibetan independence. This was done with the intention of ensuring stable relations with China. China states that Tibet is part of its ‘core interests’, and is hence non-negotiable. But on the other hand, China has refused to condemn Pakistan for sponsoring terrorist-activities in Kashmir. China has also refused to fully acknowledge the Indian Government’s stance that the Kashmir issue is to be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan. In fact, Shaksgam Valley, which is a part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (a disputed territory) – was gifted by Pakistan to China in 1963.

Moreover, China still continues to claim that Arunachal Pradesh is a part of China. The Chinese authorities still issue stapled visas to Arunachal Pradesh residents who visit China – on the ground that Arunachal Pradesh is nothing but Chinese territory that is occupied by India. If Tibet is China’s ‘core interest’, aren’t Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh also core interests for India, which China should recognize? India must hence avoid falling into this kind of trap, and should continue to recognize and reward the Tibetan community for their love and valour.

Despite their stellar contribution to India, the Tibetan refugees were not among the communities that were eligible for fast-tracked citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA), which was passed in December last year. A first step to recognize the efforts of the Tibetan refugee community is to make them eligible for fast-tracked citizenship, and grant them all the rights and privileges available to citizens. Instead of falling to Chinese pressure, the Government should take concrete steps to fulfill the needs and requirements of the Tibetans in India - who are equal patriots, belonging to a neighboring land.

As The Dalai Lama himself said – “I am a son of India, who has survived on dal, rice and roti”. 

The ban on 59 China-based apps - Some questions to ponder

Background

Last week, the Information Technology Ministry of the Central Government banned 59 China-based mobile apps. This list includes popular apps such as TikTok, UC Browser, CamScanner and ShareIt. This ban was undertaken by invoking Section 69A of the Information Technology Act (‘IT Act’), and the Website Blocking Rules of 2009. Section 69A of the IT Act confers the Central Government the power to block public access to any kind of online information, for safeguarding the sovereignty and integrity of India, and the security of the State. The procedure for this blocking of public access is prescribed in the Website Blocking Rules of 2009, which state that in a situation of ‘emergency’, an interim ban on public access can be directed, without giving a hearing to the aggrieved party.

The IT Ministry also issued a Press Release, which enlisted the reasons for the ban. The main reason mentioned in the Press Release is that the enlisted mobile apps were compromising on aspects of privacy and data security - by transmitting user data to servers located outside India. Such a compromise of privacy and data security, was, according to the Press Release, prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Press Release only states that the ‘relevant provisions’ of the Website Blocking Rules of 2009 have been invoked, and does not precisely state the ‘emergency’ which justified banning the mobile apps without giving a hearing to their developers.

However, the ostensible reason for invoking the ‘emergency’ provision is the tense situation with China, at the Ladakh border. While the IT Ministry does not explicitly mention China in the Press Release, its intention to send a strong political message to Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party establishment is but obvious. More significantly, the Central Government would also want to ensure that during a tense military situation at the border, the Chinese establishment does not resort to espionage, or cyberattacks against Indian computer networks.

Such a worry is legitimate in light of recent events across the globe - as a Chinese State-backed hacker group is suspected to be behind a major cyber attack that hit Australia in June. As the concerns over data security and privacy are based on solid grounds, it is important for the Central Government to precisely clarify whether its order is interim or permanent in nature.  As of now, it has only been reported in the media that the order is interim in nature, and that a Secretary-level panel of the Central Government shall hear clarifications from representatives of the app developers. At this juncture, let us refer to the stand taken by the Chief Executive of TikTok.

While the Chief Executive of Tiktok has stated that TikTok shall not honor any request by the Chinese establishment to share user data of Indians, such an assurance cannot be taken at face value. This is because China’s National Intelligence Law of 2017 requires all companies of Chinese origin to share data with China’s intelligence agencies, irrespective of whether they operate within or outside the country. To illustrate - TikTok, as a Chinese-origin company shall be bound to share all data demanded by Chinese intelligence agencies, even though it does not have operations in China. This National Intelligence Law is just one among the many methods through which user data can be transferred across the border.

This example highlights that the scope for unauthorized transfer of data to foreign servers existed even before the military stand-off at Ladakh broke out, and the Government’s response of raising questions of privacy and data security has been belated. Keeping this background in mind, I would like to raise two questions while this situation develops.

Two Questions

[1]. As the possibility of unauthorized data transfer to foreign servers existed even before the border standoff, what about personal data that has already been transferred? It is important for us to have an answer to this, as apps such as TikTok, Cam Scanner, and UC Browser were hugely popular, and downloaded by a majority of smartphone users. These apps may collect sensitive personal data of various kinds, such as data relating to religious and political beliefs, financial status, sexual orientation, etc. 

[2]. Along with Chinese-origin apps, there may also be a case of unauthorized data transfer by apps which have significant Chinese investment. Some popular apps which have a significant investment by Chinese companies are Swiggy, Zomato, Big Basket, Paytm and Ola Cabs. Some of these apps also have common investors. To illustrate, Chinese tech giant Alibaba has made significant investments in Paytm, Zomato and BigBasket. 

*(Incidentally, Alibaba also owns UC Browser, which is one of the 59 apps that have been banned.)

Most of us would have linked our Paytm ID in our Zomato account, which in turn would also have our bank account details. While we link this under an expectation of privacy, there does exist a definite possibility of unauthorized sharing of sensitive information of this nature. Hence, it is important to know whether apps that are backed by Chinese investment are engaging in unauthorized transfer of data to their investor companies. An answer to this question shall highlight whether the list of 59 apps chosen by the IT Ministry is exhaustive, and whether other apps that are engaging in unauthorized transfer of data have been excluded.

Along with this, there is also a larger issue that we need to address, relating to privacy and security of the data that is collected by smartphones. Our smartphones store a plethora of personal data, ranging from our fingerprints to bank account details. The Government must examine whether there exist backdoors through which sensitive personal data stored in our smartphones is being transferred and accessed in an unauthorized manner. This issue assumes significance as more than 70% of the Indian smartphone market share is held by companies such as Xiaomi and Oppo, which have their roots in China. Hence, while we focus on mobile apps, let us not forget the smartphone ecosystem as a whole.

Some of these issues shall be partly addressed once the draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 is enacted into law – as the Bill lays down conditions of processing and foreign transfer of personal data. While we push for our long overdue data protection law (irrespective of its shortcomings), let us hold the Government to account on all matters of privacy and data security. The IT Ministry’s approach here can be contrasted with the approach it adopted after launching the Arogya Setu app, which was coercively pushed even before a robust data security infrastructure was created. The ban on 59 apps should be seen in this context, and must be supplemented by addressing other equally pressing concerns of privacy and data security.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: On 27th July, the Central Government banned 47 additional apps - which were operating as clones or 'lite' versions of the 59 Chinese apps that had been banned earlier. 

Attacking the dragon where it hurts the most – Framing a human-rights based approach to tackle China

The tragic death of 20 Indian soldiers in the Galwan Valley, during a face-off with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has rightfully ignited growing discontent against China. In response to the unpardonable death of 20 Indian brave hearts, there have been calls to boycott and ban Chinese products. There have also been calls to end imports from China, and end India’s dependence on Chinese goods - be it electronics, medicinal equipment or raw materials.

What is forgotten here is that exports to India constitute only 3% of China’s total exports. Also, a majority of our imports from China are for intermediate goods, which are used as raw materials, and not for finished goods. Companies prefer importing such intermediate goods from China as they are comparatively cheaper to other markets such as Europe. Hence, a blanket ban on imports from China shall raise the cost of production, and may affect Indian producers more - when compared to the damage done to the Chinese economy.

Another aspect that is ignored here is that for certain categories of products such as smartphones, a significant market share is held by companies and brands that have roots in China. For instance, in the Indian smartphone market, brands which have their roots in China (such as Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, Realme, OnePlus etc.) account for around 70% of the market share. In fact, if one were to exclude these brands altogether from the smartphone market, the only prominent brands that shall be left for us as consumers are Samsung and Apple.

Excluding Chinese products may hence reduce consumer choice for multiple products. Such a move will also not have a significant impact on the Chinese economy, as exports to India constitute only a fraction of China’s total exports. The impact shall be felt more by companies that have their roots in China, and by Indian producers and consumers. Calling for a blanket boycott or a ban is hence counterproductive, and shall harm Indian interests more. But, at the same time, exclusion of Chinese investments may be necessary in certain sectors such as Telecom, where there is a possibility of spying and surveillance.

For instance, excluding Chinese telecom giant Huawei from India’s 5G trials may be necessary, as Huawei reportedly has close links with the Chinese establishment and has also been accused of espionage, in countries such as the US. In fact, after the Galwan Valley face-off, the Department of Telecom directed BSNL to avoid using Chinese equipment in upgrading its 4G networks, and directed BSNL to rework its tender accordingly. Telecom is one sector where there is a possibility of spying and surveillance, and policy measures to keep Chinese firms away from this sector is justified.

Indian intelligence agencies have also red-flagged 53 China-based mobile applications, which are said to be extracting data out of India, and compromising privacy and data security. The list includes popular apps such as TikTok and SHAREit. We need to create more awareness of the privacy and data security concerns associated with such apps, and let users take an informed call on whether they wish to continue using them.

Chinese involvement should hence be restricted in areas where there is a possibility of spying or surveillance, which compromises data privacy and security. Such a human-rights centered approach, to safeguard data privacy and security is more beneficial, as it focuses on safeguarding our fundamental rights, and simultaneously sends a strong message across the border. Our human-rights centered approach must also have another important prong. We must use international forums to highlight multiple human rights atrocities that are being committed by China.

The most prominent example of this is China’s inhumane treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province. Uyghurs have been sent to concentration camps and re-education camps, and the Chinese establishment was also illegally harvesting their organs for treating other coronavirus patients. In fact, on 18^th June, Donald Trump signed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which was passed by the US Congress to impose sanctions on China for its torture of Uyghur Muslims. Human rights is China’s Achilles’ heel, and India must up the ante on such gross human rights abuses committed by the Chinese establishment.

Along with this, India should also try to build global consensus against the new national security law, which China proposes to impose over Hong Kong. The proposed law grants the Chinese establishment greater powers over Hong Kong’s independent legal system, thereby crippling Hong Kong’s autonomy under the ‘one country, two systems’ principle. The law also aims to cripple civil and political freedoms by granting Chinese security organs the power to exercise jurisdiction in Hong Kong, during undefined circumstances that may jeopardize national security. India should aim to be the frontrunner in creating global consensus against this proposed national security law, which aims to suppress dissent in Hong Kong.

Finally, India should also aim to generate consensus on the need for an impartial investigation of the manner in which the novel coronavirus originated in Wuhan. This is in light of multiple reports which show that China suppressed information about the novel coronavirus, and also silenced doctors who highlighted the emergence of a new virus in Wuhan in December 2019.

In the month of May, the World Health Assembly also passed a resolution moved by Australia, which called for a comprehensive investigation of the origins of Covid-19. As India has now assumed leadership of the WHO Executive Board, it is in a position to build global consensus for beginning a fair and impartial investigation – which remains free from Chinese interference.

India hence has significant scope to build global consensus over China’s recent track record of suppressing human rights and fundamental freedoms. Such a human-rights based approach should form an integral part of our efforts to tackle China at the international stage. The presence of democracy and fundamental freedoms is India’s greatest advantage over China, and instead of calling for blanket boycotts, we must leverage this to our benefit.