Page 10

China rejected the results of the conference yet quietly adopted the demarcation of “political” and “anthropological” Tibets. It placed “anthropological” Tibet under its sphere of influence and began marking a boundary between the two “Tibets”. Nonetheless, the kingdoms of Kham and Amdo acted independently of Beijing and it is unclear to what degree they accepted China’s new position. It was only with the Nationalist and Communist invasions of the Tibetan plateau in the early and mid-20th century that borders hardened, and China intervened aggressively in Tibetan affairs. Following the Communist invasion, Kham and Amdo were swallowed up by the Chinese provinces of Sichuan and Qinghai.

The question of a Tibetan “nation” is complicated by the lack of centralization in Tibetan culture and politics. The scholar Geoffrey Samuel calls this feature of Tibet “rhizomatic”. Like a network of mushrooms. Or the digital networks that make up the internet. Multiple nodes of authority in the Tibetan world create webs of overlapping communities and influences that diffuse authority throughout. With occupation and exile, these networks have been redrawn and expanded. New nodes have formed while old ones have sometimes disappeared or repositioned themselves.

You can see this in the leading figures of the Dalai Lama’s school of Tibetan Buddhism, the Gelugpa. The Dalai Lamas ruled central Tibet as heads of a Gelugpa theocracy. The Panchen Lamas were historically second in command. Beyond that, the heads of the three great Gelugpa monasteries, Sera, Ganden, and Drepung, also wielded enormous authority and influence. Apart from the Panchen Lama who was abducted by the Chinese state at a young age, these nodes of authority continue to exert influence.