In recent years, the writer has more than once criticized the 14th Dalai Lama for the separatist nature of his "middle-way approach," for his true feature as a general representative of the feudalist serf-owners of old Tibet, for his collaboration with overseas separatists and the "East Turkistan" terrorists and for all his lies. To all this, the Dalai Lama kept a total silence, showing his pretty strong endurance. But, after this writer, in his Feb 19, 2010 article "Foreign backing gives Dalai Lama no room but doom", exposed his nature of forgetting his ancestry and making himself a "son of India" many times, the Dalai Lama could not possess his temper any longer. According to foreign media, he gave an interview in Dharamsala, India, on March 9, for his own defense, saying "there are three reasons making me believe I am a 'son of India'." The writer wishes to admire the Dalai Lama for his courage to finally admit what he has said and put up a defense.

It is found that the 14th Dalai Lama, Dainzin Gyamco, is a son of a farmer in Qijiachuan Village, Huangzhong County (today's Hongya Village, Shihuiyao Township, Ping'an County), in west China's Qinghai Province. He was born in 1935 and was originally named Lhamo Toinzhub. His father was Qique Tsering and his mother, Dekyi Tsering. On Oct. 7, 1939, Lhamo Toinzhub was escorted to Lhasa by soldiers of the Nationalist Government as one of the candidates for the reincarnated soul boy of the 13th Dalai Lama. On Feb. 5, 1940, the National Government issued an order, saying "the Qinghai soul boy Lhamo Toinzhub should be allowed to ascend his throne as the 14th Dalai Lama." On March 10, 1959, the reactionary clique of the upper class in Tibet led by the Dalai Lama launched an armed rebellion and consequently fled to India after its failure. Hence it is evident that the 14th Dalai Lama has an explicit life experience and personal details, how then is it that the man suddenly became a "son of India"? Let's look at what he has to offer as justification.

The Dalai Lama's first reason: "I am a Buddhist. All my Buddhism knowledge and sense of worth are from India. India was deemed as my teacher and we, Buddhism believers, are all students of India." It is true that Buddhism originated from India, and then spread to other parts of the world, especially to east Asia and south Asia and attracted a large number of believers in many countries. But Buddhists in every country, including the Tibetan Buddhists, do not regard themselves as sons of India just because Buddhism originated from India. In fact, transnational spread of religion is universal and there is no necessary connection between the believers' identification with their own country and the source country of the religion. For instance, Christianity and Islamism, both stemming from the Middle East, today command over 3 billion believers in different countries.  These believers make it their duty to safeguard their nations' dignity and interests and nobody has ever called himself son of this or that country in the Middle East because of his Christianity or Islamism belief. As is known to all, many supporters of the Dalai Lama in the western countries are devout Christians. Following his logic, will the Dalai Lama assign the particular middle-east countries to the Christians as their fathers?

The second reason he raised was: "I lived with Indian food for 51 years. Indian food and theories raised me, that is why I said I am a son of India." This can not but remind people of the saying: "whoever suckles me is my mother." As he has said, the Dalai Lama is alive thanks mainly to Indian food in these 51 years since he fled the motherland. It stands to reason the Dalai Lama tries to show his gratitude to India every year, but it is far-fetched for him to claim as a "son of India". In today's world, it is common that people might live in foreign countries out of different reasons, nevertheless there is hardly any other case in which one announces to be a son of a foreign country because of the food he eats. The point is, in these 51 years, the Dalai Lama eats food not only from Indian but also from some other countries, and moreover even takes their money. As far back as the 1960s, the Dalai Lama earned an annual salary of 180,000 U.S. dollars from the intelligence agencies of a certain country, higher than the pay of its president. According to his logic of becoming a son of the one who feeds "his body", is the Dalai Lama ready to declare himself also son of the other countries? If not, he will somewhat "favor one and discriminate against the other."

The third reason he held was: "The religious harmony and nonviolent action that I pursue come from India. They are traditions of India. I stick to these traditions wherever I go." Again, the Dalai Lama told a lie here. As a matter of fact, his separatist activities since 1959 have always been closely tied up with violence and terror, running counter against the non-violence idea. It is known to all that harmony and non-violence are the common wish and pursuit of mankind since ancient time, existing in the tradition of Indian as well as other countries and nations, and it is not a patent of a single country. The Dalai Lama has the right to applaud India, but he has no right to dwarf the cultures of other countries and nations. Every valuable thought or culture of the mankind has been shared since old ages by different countries and nations to varying degrees, but nobody therefore deems that the origin country and the beneficiary countries have a father-and-son relationship.

Hence, the "reasons" the Dalai Lama listed are really nothing but a rare kind of distortion and smear of the cultural diffusion of human being.

It is just because the Dalai Lama's "son of India" notion so ridiculous, so abnormal and so disgraceful that very few in his clique dare to echo or stand in his defense. Many of his western followers keep their mouth shut and even the flattered Indians take a cold manner, not feeling excited for having one more "son".

Now that the Dalai Lama wants to be a "son of India", he has to take some practical actions. In the memo he submitted to former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in April 1986, he declaredly called southern Tibet "Arunachal Pradesh". In 1999, when giving an interview to the China Times of Taiwan, he said: "I have no duty when visiting the Ladakh and Mon Tawang because they are the territory of India."

In recent years, the Dalai Lama has many times claimed that the territory in southern Tibet "belongs to India". 

The illegal separatist political clique in exile headed by the Dalai Lama is itself powerless, so it has to entrust the "Tibet Independence" dream to its foreign supporters. After all the failures in stirring the Lhasa March 14 riots, disrupting the Beijing Olympics Games, attempting to achieve a "breakthrough" through contacts and failures in a series other activities, he ends up now with no other choice but being a "son" of a foreign country. It seems the Dalai Lama hasn't realized that in a situation like his, how much useful he still is in the eyes of the foreigners?

To give up separatist words and deeds and back to the road of patriotism is the only right choice for the Dalai Lama. If he resolves to be a "son of India", that's his own business and others have no right to oppose. However, we just want to tell him not to do anything more under the guise of "representative of interests of all the Tibetans". The Tibet issue is completely China's interior affairs, and being a "son of India", he is not qualified to gossip about it. He might try to set a hand in India's interior affairs, but that will depend on whether India accepts him as a "son".

The writer hopes to see new responses to this article from both the Dalai Lama and his followers.

(Translated by Chen Wenbing, Niki and Mirenda)