Sikyong Penpa Tsering, the elected political leader of the Central Tibetan Administration, has warned that China is systematically dismantling Tibetan language, religion, and cultural identity — particularly among children — through policies that could ultimately weaken Tibet's historic bonds with India. Speaking during a visit to Washington on 13 November, Tsering described a deepening campaign of cultural assimilation that has moved well beyond visible security measures.

Boarding Schools as Instruments of Assimilation

Tsering alleged that China is using education as its primary tool of cultural erasure. Tibetan-medium schooling, he said, has been progressively displaced by institutions where Mandarin dominates instruction. He claimed children as young as four years old are being placed in residential schools where the use of the Tibetan language is actively discouraged.

'They are striking at our language in the form of colonial style boarding schools,' he said. Children returning home, he added, are increasingly reluctant to speak Tibetan — a generational shift he described as deeply alarming for the community's cultural continuity.

China's Ethnic Unity Law and Formal Assimilation Policy

Tsering linked these developments to what he identified as China's new ethnic unity and progress law, reportedly adopted on 12 March. According to Tsering, the legislation gave formal legal backing to assimilation policies that Beijing had been pursuing for more than a decade in Tibet. The concerns, he said, extended across multiple domains — from restrictions on Tibetan-language signage to alterations in the design of monasteries and pressure to elevate Chinese cultural forms in Tibetan public life.

He further alleged that religious institutions are being compelled to promote loyalty to the Communist Party of China rather than focus on Buddhist learning. Together, he argued, these measures threaten the intergenerational transmission of Tibetan civilisation.

Implications for India's Security and Bilateral Ties

Tsering warned that the cultural transformation of Tibet carried direct consequences for India. Tibetans, he noted, have traditionally regarded India with deep respect because of its Buddhist heritage and its sustained support for the Tibetan exile community. A younger generation educated under China's assimilation system, he cautioned, could grow up with an altogether different orientation.

He also argued that the dispute over the Himalayan border cannot be separated from the historical events that brought Tibet under Chinese control in the mid-twentieth century, framing the security dimension of the Tibet question as inseparable from its cultural one. 'If it is not for the government and people of India, then we don't exist,' he said, calling the Indian government the Tibetan community's 'biggest support' in areas including education, rehabilitation, and other humanitarian programmes.

China's Effort to Isolate the Tibetan Leadership Abroad

Tsering alleged that Chinese diplomatic representatives had contacted organisations and officials he was scheduled to meet during a recent visit to Amsterdam, in what he described as an attempt to restrict international access for the Tibetan leadership. 'So they want to choke all the approaches that we make to the international community,' he said.

He urged governments to distinguish between supporting Tibet and opposing China, arguing that 'supporting Tibet is not necessarily anti-China, it's supporting justice and truth.'

Middle Way: Autonomy, Not Independence

Despite his stark account of conditions in Tibet, Tsering ruled out any turn to armed resistance. The Tibetan movement, he said, remains committed to negotiating with Beijing and securing meaningful autonomy under the so-called middle way approach — under which Tibetans would govern their own cultural and religious affairs within a framework of autonomy, rather than seeking full independence. Asked whether nonviolence had failed to deliver results, he pointed to the asymmetry of power between Tibet's population and China's military capacity, arguing that an armed campaign would hand Beijing grounds to label Tibetan activists as terrorists. 'The only alternative to non-violence is violence,' he said, maintaining that a negotiated settlement would be more durable for both peoples who would remain neighbours regardless of political outcomes.