Physical Address
18 C Ibbani Harohalli Village
Yelahanka Bengaluru 560064
The Dalai Lama’s Succession: A Geopolitical Chessboard in the Himalayas
Introduction: The Twilight Years of a Global Icon and the Looming Succession Crisis
The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, stands as a globally recognized figure of peace and compassion, serving as the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism. Revered by his adherents as a “Living Buddha”—a manifestation of Chenrezig, the Buddhist god of compassion—he embodies a tradition stretching back over 500 years. Since his escape from Tibet in 1959 following a failed uprising and his subsequent asylum in Dharamshala, India, he has become a powerful symbol for the preservation of Tibetan culture and religious identity in exile. While his influence is primarily spiritual, he historically held significant political authority until he democratically relinquished these temporal powers to the Tibetan government-in-exile in 2011.
As the Dalai Lama approaches his 90th birthday, the question of his successor has moved from a distant concern to an urgent, central issue, transforming what is fundamentally a deeply spiritual matter into a major geopolitical flashpoint. The Dalai Lama himself recently affirmed the continued existence of the institution, a declaration that directly challenges Beijing’s long-standing claims over the succession process and sets the stage for intensified conflict.
This explicit statement about the institution’s continuity and the Gaden Phodrang Trust’s “sole authority” is more than a religious pronouncement; it represents a pre-emptive strategic maneuver. By making this declaration ahead of his 90th birthday and asserting that “no one else has any such authority to interfere,” the Dalai Lama is actively attempting to solidify the traditional Tibetan process and delegitimize any future Chinese-appointed successor. This move aims to secure the spiritual and cultural integrity of the institution from exile, preventing its co-option by an external power. This action elevates the succession from a purely internal religious matter to a direct, public challenge to China’s perceived authority over Tibetan religious affairs. It effectively sets the stage for a potential “dual Dalai Lama” scenario, forcing international actors to contend with two competing claims of legitimacy, thereby intensifying the geopolitical conflict and the struggle for influence over Tibet’s future.
The Sacred Tradition: How a Dalai Lama is Found
Within Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is believed to be the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion. Adherents hold the belief that the incumbent Dalai Lama possesses the ability to consciously choose the body into which he will be reborn. This profound theological concept underpins the entire succession process.
The traditional method for identifying a “tulku,” or reincarnation, typically commences only after the passing of the current Dalai Lama. High lamas and government officials embark on a meticulous search, which involves consulting revered oracles, such as the Nechung Oracle, and interpreting various spiritual signs and omens. These indications can manifest in diverse forms, from natural phenomena like blossoming trees and earth tremors to the direction of smoke from a cremation, or even significant omens and dreams experienced by the prospective parents.
Search parties are dispatched, often to the Tibetan region, to locate a child born around the time of the previous Dalai Lama’s death. Potential candidates undergo a series of rigorous tests designed to confirm their identity. These evaluations include observing the child’s personality, assessing their memory of the previous lama, and determining if they recognize the former lama’s possessions and close associates. Further “inner and secret tests” are conducted using meditative insight. Should multiple candidates emerge, the true successor may be chosen by drawing lots in a public ceremony. Once identified, the child is brought to a prominent monastery, such as Drepung Monastery in Lhasa, to begin extensive studies of Buddhist scriptures, preparing them for their future spiritual leadership. This entire, intricate process can span several years.
The institution of the Dalai Lama, established by Altan Khan in 1587, has been in existence for several centuries. The tradition of formally recognizing reincarnate lamas within the Gelug school, the specific lineage of the Dalai Lamas, began with the second Dalai Lama, Gedun Gyatso. The current 14th Dalai Lama himself was found and recognized through these established rituals and conventions. The intricate, multi-faceted traditional process for identifying a Dalai Lama, involving spiritual signs, oracles, and recognition by high lamas, is foundational to the institution’s spiritual and cultural legitimacy within Tibetan Buddhism. This legitimacy is not derived from political decree but from centuries of deeply held beliefs in conscious reincarnation and a rigorous, faith-based selection methodology. Any attempt by an external, non-religious entity to impose a successor, especially one that bypasses or manipulates these sacred rituals, fundamentally undermines the spiritual authority and acceptance of the chosen individual among the vast majority of Tibetan Buddhists. China’s insistence on the “Golden Urn” and government approval is therefore not merely a procedural disagreement but a direct assault on the very theological and cultural underpinnings of Tibetan Buddhism. This creates an irreconcilable conflict, as a “true” Dalai Lama, from the Tibetan perspective, cannot be one chosen by an atheist, communist state that has historically suppressed their religion and culture. This inherent incompatibility almost guarantees a contested succession and a profound schism within the global Tibetan Buddhist community.
The 14th Dalai Lama’s Vision: A Free World Successor
The 14th Dalai Lama has definitively stated that the institution of the Dalai Lama will continue, dispelling earlier considerations that he might be the last in the lineage. This significant decision was made after extensive consultations with high lamas and the Tibetan public, who collectively urged for the continuation of the lineage, recognizing its vital role.
He has explicitly declared that the Gaden Phodrang Trust, a non-profit foundation he established, will hold “sole authority” to recognize his future reincarnation. He underscored this by stating unequivocally that “no one else has any such authority to interfere in this matter.” The Trust members are mandated to conduct the search and recognition “in accordance with past tradition,” consulting with the heads of Tibetan Buddhist traditions and the oath-bound Dharma Protectors who are intrinsically linked to the Dalai Lama lineage.
In a notable departure from historical norms, the Dalai Lama has indicated the possibility of an adult successor. This approach would offer the advantage of providing immediate leadership for the Tibetan diaspora, bypassing the decades-long traditional period of study and preparation that China could potentially exploit or disrupt. He has also playfully suggested a reincarnation as a “mischievous blonde woman” and more seriously stated that if a female Dalai Lama emerges, she should be “more attractive.” Crucially, he has stated that his successor could be of “any gender.”
Most notably, the Dalai Lama has emphasized that the next Dalai Lama will be born “in the free world” and “outside China,” specifically among his supporters. This declaration directly opposes Beijing’s known desire to install a loyalist from within Tibet. The Dalai Lama’s progressive suggestions—such as an adult or female successor, and particularly a successor born outside Tibet—are not merely reflections of evolving societal views but strategically calculated moves. By allowing for an adult successor, he addresses the pragmatic need for immediate, experienced leadership for the Tibetan diaspora, circumventing the lengthy traditional grooming process that China could easily exploit or disrupt. By explicitly stating the successor will be born in the “free world,” he ensures the lineage remains beyond Beijing’s direct control, thereby preserving its autonomy and moral authority. The mention of a female Dalai Lama also broadens the potential pool of candidates and challenges traditional gender norms, potentially garnering broader international support and sympathy. This demonstrates the Dalai Lama’s profound foresight in adapting ancient traditions to the complex realities of modern geopolitics. It represents an intentional effort to future-proof the institution against Chinese interference, ensuring its spiritual and political independence. This adaptive approach itself serves as a powerful form of non-violent resistance against state-imposed control, aiming to secure the longevity and legitimacy of the Dalai Lama lineage in exile.
Beijing’s Assertive Claim: The “Golden Urn” and State Control
China adamantly asserts that the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation “must follow the principles of domestic recognition, the ‘Golden Urn’ process, and approval by the central government, in line with religious traditions and laws.” The “Golden Urn” selection method, introduced during the Qing dynasty in 1792, is presented by China as a legitimate historical convention and a legal requirement for the selection of high lamas. Chinese officials further argue that the 14th Dalai Lama himself received approval from the then-central government for his enthronement, implying a historical precedent for state involvement.
Beijing consistently labels the 14th Dalai Lama as an “anti-China separatist” and a “splittist.” They accuse him of inciting rebellion and attempting to seize control of Tibet from China. This narrative persists despite the Dalai Lama’s long-standing advocacy for “genuine autonomy” for the Tibetan people within the framework of the People’s Republic of China, rather than full independence.
The “Golden Urn” process was formally institutionalized into Chinese law through the 2007 State Religious Affairs Bureau Order No. 5. Article 7 of this order explicitly states that “no group or individual may carry out activities related to searching for and identifying the reincarnated soul boy of the ‘living Buddha’ without authorization.” Article 8 specifies that the lot-drawing ceremony with the Golden Urn is applicable to lamas who have been reincarnated previously in history. This legislation effectively centralizes and legalizes the Chinese government’s control over all “living Buddha” reincarnations, firmly placing them under state authority.
While China frames the “Golden Urn” as a “traditional” and “historical convention,” its formal institutionalization in the 2007 State Religious Affairs Bureau Order No. 5 reveals its true nature: a legal and administrative mechanism for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to exert absolute, top-down control over Tibetan religious affairs. The historical context, particularly the CCP’s abduction of the Panchen Lama chosen by the Dalai Lama and their subsequent imposition of their own candidate via the Golden Urn, clearly demonstrates that China selectively applies “tradition” to serve its contemporary political objectives. The “Golden Urn” is thus less about authentic religious practice and more about ensuring political loyalty and subservience to the state. This approach creates a fundamental and irreconcilable incompatibility between the CCP’s secular, authoritarian rule and the spiritual autonomy of Tibetan Buddhism. China’s actions are widely perceived by Tibetans and many international observers as a deliberate attempt to dismantle genuine Tibetan Buddhist leadership and replace it with state-sanctioned figures, thereby undermining Tibetan identity and culture. This ensures a prolonged and bitter struggle for legitimacy, almost certainly leading to a scenario with two rival Dalai Lamas, one recognized by the Tibetan people and the other by Beijing.
A Precedent of Interference: The Panchen Lama Controversy
The Panchen Lama holds immense spiritual significance as the second most important spiritual leader in Tibetan Buddhism, second only to the Dalai Lama. The controversy surrounding the 11th Panchen Lama serves as a critical and chilling precedent for the Dalai Lama’s succession, offering a clear indication of Beijing’s likely strategy.
Following the death of the 10th Panchen Lama in 1989, the 14th Dalai Lama, adhering to traditional Tibetan Buddhist methods, publicly recognized Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the 11th Panchen Lama on May 14, 1995. However, just three days later, on May 17, 1995, Chinese authorities abducted Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his family. He has since been referred to as the “world’s youngest political prisoner” and has not been seen in public, with his whereabouts remaining undisclosed despite persistent international pressure from the UN, various governments, and human rights organizations.
Months after the abduction, in November 1995, the People’s Republic of China controversially installed its own candidate, Gyaincain Norbu, as the 11th Panchen Lama, utilizing the “Golden Urn” lottery system. This state-appointed selection was immediately denounced by the Dalai Lama.
The Panchen Lama controversy profoundly heightens fears for the Dalai Lama’s succession. It unequivocally demonstrates China’s willingness and capacity to directly intervene in and control the selection of high lamas, even through coercive measures like abduction and the imposition of a state-chosen figure. The Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama has largely “failed to gain acceptance among Tibetans,” intensifying concerns that similar interference in the Dalai Lama’s succession would result in a figure lacking genuine spiritual legitimacy and widespread acceptance. The Dalai Lama himself has strongly condemned China’s actions, stating that “the person who reincarnates has sole legitimate authority over where and how he or she takes rebirth and how that reincarnation is to be recognized,” emphasizing that “no one else can force the person concerned, or manipulate him or her.” The Panchen Lama controversy is not merely a historical footnote but a direct, actionable blueprint for China’s anticipated strategy regarding the Dalai Lama’s succession. The CCP’s actions—abducting the Dalai Lama’s chosen candidate, installing their own via the Golden Urn, and systematically suppressing any dissent or independent religious authority—reveal a clear, repeatable, and effective (from Beijing’s perspective) strategy for asserting absolute control over Tibetan religious institutions. This past “success” reinforces Beijing’s conviction that it can similarly manage the Dalai Lama’s succession to its political advantage. This precedent makes the emergence of a “dual Dalai Lama” scenario almost inevitable, with one recognized by the Tibetan diaspora and traditionalists, and another by Beijing. This deepens the existing cultural and political schism, making any future reconciliation or genuine autonomy for Tibet even more remote. It also underscores the CCP’s long-term strategic objective of controlling religious institutions to ensure political loyalty and maintain stability within its borders, viewing independent religious figures as potential threats to its authority.
India’s Delicate Balancing Act: Asylum, Faith, and Diplomacy
India has played a pivotal historical role as the host nation for the 14th Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetan exiles, providing them asylum since he fled Tibet in 1959 following a failed uprising against Chinese invasion. The Tibetan government-in-exile, known as the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), is headquartered in Dharamshala, India. India’s historical ties with Tibet date back to the 6th century AD with the spread of Buddhism, and India inherited treaties from the British Raj concerning Tibet, initially treating it as a de facto independent entity.
The Indian government’s official stance, articulated by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), is that it “does not take any position or speak on matters concerning beliefs and practices of faith and religion.” This statement represents India’s carefully calibrated diplomatic approach to the highly sensitive issue. The MEA consistently emphasizes India’s commitment to upholding “freedom of religion for all in India.”
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, a practicing Buddhist, publicly asserted that “No one except the Dalai Lama can decide the next successor,” and that the decision “rests solely with him, in accordance with centuries-old Buddhist customs.” He characterized China’s objections as “unwarranted interference.” However, Rijiju later clarified that his comments were made as a “devotee” and not on behalf of the Indian government, reflecting the wishes of the Dalai Lama’s followers. Despite the MEA’s official neutrality, Rijiju, along with another Union Minister, Rajiv Ranjan Singh, will officially represent the Indian government at the Dalai Lama’s 90th birthday celebrations in Dharamshala, framing the event as a “purely religious function” rather than a political one.
China has reacted strongly to Rijiju’s remarks, issuing warnings to India against interfering in its “internal affairs” concerning Tibet, and cautioning that such comments could “impact the improvement and development of the China-India relationship.” The Dalai Lama’s succession issue adds another layer of complexity to the already strained India-China bilateral relations, which have been tense since the 2020 border clashes in Ladakh. While both nations have shown signs of improving ties and high-level visits have resumed, the Dalai Lama’s succession remains a significant potential flashpoint.
India’s official stance of neutrality on “matters of faith and religion,” while simultaneously providing asylum to the Dalai Lama and allowing a senior Union Minister to attend his birthday celebrations, exemplifies a sophisticated strategy of “strategic ambiguity.” This approach enables India to uphold its humanitarian commitments to the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan community, implicitly supporting their religious freedom and traditional practices, without explicitly challenging China’s sovereignty claims over Tibet. It provides a degree of plausible deniability to Beijing while simultaneously signaling support to the Tibetan cause and its own domestic audience, particularly Buddhists. This delicate balancing act reflects India’s complex geopolitical tightrope walk, caught between its democratic values and its imperative to manage a volatile border and crucial economic relationship with an assertive China. This ambiguity, however, may become increasingly untenable if a “dual Dalai Lama” scenario materializes, potentially forcing India to adopt a more definitive stance or risk further deterioration of its already fragile bilateral ties with Beijing.
Geopolitical Stakes: Beyond Religion
Tibet’s strategic importance extends far beyond its cultural and religious identity. Historically, it served as a vital buffer zone between China and India. Under Chinese rule, however, Tibet has become a nexus of growing threats to global security, marked by increased militarization and the development of extensive infrastructure. China has constructed military installations and infrastructure specifically to prepare for potential armed conflict with India.
The Tibetan Plateau is also a critical source of natural resources, including abundant hydropower and solar energy, making it central to China’s long-term energy strategy. Crucially, the construction of dams on major rivers originating in Tibet, such as the Brahmaputra (Yarlung Zangbo), grants Beijing significant upstream leverage over downstream nations like India and Bangladesh. Furthermore, China’s substantial tech investments in Tibet—including surveillance networks, 5G infrastructure, and data centers—serve a dual purpose: controlling internal dissent and projecting military power, particularly along the sensitive India-China border.
The prospect of two rival Dalai Lamas is a widely anticipated outcome: one appointed by Beijing and another by senior monks loyal to the current Dalai Lama. This is largely fueled by the precedent set by the Panchen Lama controversy, where China installed its own candidate after the Dalai Lama’s choice disappeared. Such a schism would likely lead to increased instability, as the absence of a universally recognized Dalai Lama carries a “great risk of rising tension and instability in Tibet.”
The succession issue significantly exacerbates existing bilateral tensions between India and China. Historical events, such as the Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh followed by the Doklam standoff, underscore how seemingly religious matters can quickly escalate into major geopolitical disputes. The issue of water control from Tibetan rivers also remains a potent point of potential conflict between China and India.
Internationally, there are differing approaches to the succession. Unlike India’s nuanced neutrality, the United States officially maintains that China has no legitimate role in the Dalai Lama’s succession, asserting it as a matter of religious freedom, not state authority. The U.S. has even threatened to raise the issue at the United Nations. Furthermore, international bodies and governments, including the UN, European Parliament, Canada, the UK, and the US, have consistently called for the release of the Panchen Lama chosen by the Dalai Lama, highlighting China’s violations of human rights and religious freedom.
Tibet’s geopolitical significance extends far beyond its cultural and religious identity, positioning it as a critical strategic asset for China. It provides a crucial geographical buffer, a vast source of vital natural resources (especially water and minerals), and a platform for projecting military and surveillance power, particularly towards India. China’s insistence on controlling the Dalai Lama’s succession is thus not merely about religious legitimacy but fundamentally about solidifying its internal control over Tibet and projecting its regional dominance. The potential for rival Dalai Lamas directly challenges China’s narrative of a unified, stable Tibet under its rule and could ignite internal dissent, thereby impacting border stability with India. The Dalai Lama’s succession crisis is a micro-representation of the broader struggle for influence and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. China’s actions in Tibet, including its stance on the Dalai Lama, are integral to its comprehensive strategy to secure its western flank, control vital resources, and assert its regional hegemony. This has direct and profound implications for India’s national security, regional water politics, and the broader balance of power, transforming the Dalai Lama’s succession into a matter of international security, not just human rights or religious freedom.
Key Stances on Dalai Lama Succession
| Entity | Stance on Succession Process | Key Arguments/Motivations |
| Dalai Lama / Tibetan Exiles | Sole authority to Gaden Phodrang Trust; traditional spiritual methods (omens, tests, high lamas’ recognition); successor to be born in the “free world” (outside China); possibility of adult or female successor. | To preserve the spiritual autonomy and integrity of the institution; to ensure the continuation of the Dalai Lama’s work and legacy; to resist Chinese political and cultural control over Tibetan Buddhism; to maintain the unity and identity of the Tibetan people in exile. |
| China (People’s Republic of China) | Reincarnation must follow “Golden Urn” process and central government approval; successor must be born within China’s Tibetan areas; views Dalai Lama as a “separatist.” | To assert sovereignty and administrative control over Tibet and its religious institutions; to eliminate any independent spiritual authority that could challenge CCP rule or foster “separatism”; to ensure political stability and loyalty within its borders. |
| India | Officially takes “no position on matters concerning beliefs and practices of faith and religion”; upholds freedom of religion for all; hosts Dalai Lama and Tibetan exiles. | To balance its humanitarian role as host to the Dalai Lama with the complexities of its bilateral relations with China; to avoid direct diplomatic fallout while implicitly supporting religious freedom; to manage border tensions and regional stability. |
| United States | Views succession as a matter of religious freedom, not state authority; China has no role; calls for release of Panchen Lama. | To uphold principles of religious freedom and human rights globally; to challenge authoritarian control over religious practices; to support democratic values and international norms. |
Conclusion: Navigating an Uncertain Future
The succession of the 14th Dalai Lama stands as a deeply complex issue, situated at the critical intersection of profound spiritual tradition, geopolitical power struggles, and fundamental human rights. It creates a stark dichotomy, pitting the spiritual authority and expressed wishes of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhists against the assertive, state-controlled policies of the Chinese Communist Party. The core conflict revolves around a fundamental question of legitimacy: who possesses the rightful authority to choose the next spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism? For Tibetans, it is an inherently internal religious matter, guided by centuries-old beliefs in reincarnation and the rigorous recognition process by high lamas. For China, however, it is framed as an issue of state sovereignty, historical precedent (the “Golden Urn”), and internal stability, meticulously codified into national laws.
The most probable scenario involves the emergence of two rival Dalai Lamas: one chosen by the Gaden Phodrang Trust in exile, likely born in the “free world,” and another appointed by Beijing. This outcome would inevitably deepen the existing schism within Tibetan Buddhism and pose significant challenges for international recognition and diplomatic engagement. Key challenges include maintaining the unity and cohesion of the Tibetan diaspora, ensuring the spiritual authority and global acceptance of the “free world” Dalai Lama, and navigating the complex and potentially volatile diplomatic fallout with China.
Despite the intricate political complexities, the Dalai Lama remains an enduring and profound symbol of hope, peace, and cultural preservation for Tibetans worldwide. His unwavering commitment to a non-violent “Middle Way” approach has served as an inspiration for global movements advocating for peace and human rights. The future of the Dalai Lama institution is therefore not merely an internal religious concern but is critically important for the very survival of distinct Tibetan Buddhist culture and identity, especially in the face of ongoing Chinese repression.
The Dalai Lama’s succession is not merely a legal or religious dispute; it is a significant “soft power” battleground on the global stage. The Dalai Lama’s widespread global appeal, his Nobel Peace Prize, and his consistent message of compassion lend him immense moral authority, which China actively seeks to undermine by controlling his successor. By ensuring a successor chosen outside China, the Dalai Lama aims to preserve the institution’s independence and its ability to function as a powerful global voice for compassion and Tibetan rights. Conversely, China’s strenuous efforts are designed to legitimize its rule over Tibet and neutralize any independent religious authority that could serve as a focal point for dissent or a rallying point for Tibetan identity. The ultimate outcome of this succession will profoundly impact the global perception of China’s human rights record and its approach to religious freedom within its borders. It will also serve as a crucial test of the international community’s resolve to uphold principles of religious autonomy and human rights against state authoritarianism, potentially shaping future diplomatic engagements, international alliances, and the broader discourse on state-religion relations.
References
- https://freetibet.org/latest/dalai-lama-confirms-succession/
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/trust-will-pick-successor-says-dalai-lama-china-says-its-approval-must/articleshow/122213512.cms
- https://www.csw.org.uk/2025/07/03/press/6560/article.htm
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Panchen_Lama_controversy
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/in-snub-to-china-india-says-only-dalai-can-pick-successor/articleshow/122236450.cms
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/govt-doesnt-take-stand-on-matters-of-faith-says-mea-on-dalai-succession-issue/articleshow/122258079.cms
- https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/china-angry-india-hands-off-dalai-lama-plan-after-kiren-rijijus-remark-prnt/cid/2111481
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-takes-no-position-on-matters-of-faith-mea-on-dalai-lama-succession-row-walks-tightrope-on-sino-india-ties/articleshow/122251851.cms
- (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDRVLEkxDIs)
- https://www.deccanchronicle.com/news/world/china-objects-to-kiren-rijijus-remarks-on-dalai-lama-reincarnation-1889455
- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_the_14th_Dalai_Lama)
- https://www.ainvest.com/news/tibet-china-stalemate-navigating-geopolitical-risks-strategic-sectors-2507/
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/dalai-lama-may-name-successor-on-his-90th-birthday/articleshow/122146536.cms
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/only-dalai-lama-can-decide-successor-kiren-rijiju/articleshow/122234364.cms
- https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/explained-how-is-the-dalai-lama-chosen-and-why-is-china-seeing-red-2751020-2025-07-05
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93India_relations
- https://time.com/7299462/dalai-lama-statement-birthday-successor-reincarnation-tibetan-buddhism-china-explainer/
- https://apnews.com/article/dalai-lama-tibet-buddhism-3b0529d2b353042f62c4389d2ba91872
- (https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-new-Dalai-Lama-chosen-and-what-is-the-process-for-becoming-one)
- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Tibet_relations)
- https://savetibet.org/why-tibet/global-security/
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/dalai-lama-succession-dispute-understanding-who-he-is-how-his-successor-is-chosen-and-what-students-need-to-know-about-growing-tensions/articleshow/122218506.cms
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/bodh-gaya-buddhists-slam-chinas-control-tactics/articleshow/122254259.cms
- (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWw74GktX4A)
