But What If the Child Abuse Were a Chinese Psyop?

The Dalai Lama held a child’s chin while he kissed him on the lips and then asked him to suck his tongue. He did this in room full of people while at a public speaking engagement. This event took place on February 28th in Dhramshala, India. It led him to issue a statement to “apologize to the boy and his family” for the “hurt his words may have caused.” Adding in the end that the Dalai Lama “teases people he meets in an innocent and playful way, even in public and before cameras.”

So we have a clear cut instance of the Dalai Lama kissing a boy on the lips, asking him to suck his tongue, when the boy merely wanted a hug. This child abuse is also an example of an abuse of power, putting a child in a position where one of the biggest figures in the world has pressured them to “suck my tongue.” The apology is focused on the words, rather than the entire exchange, and frames it as a joke. Disgusting child abuse in every sense of the word.

In short, as the internet is wont to say: check his hard drive.

But what if this outrage were a Chinese ploy? Wouldn’t you want to support the Dalai Lama then? I thought so. At least, that’s what Vice thinks is worth reporting.

The article interviews multiple Tibetans about the situation. One, described as a “US-based Tibetan journalist,” said that the Dalai Lama has a history of doing this. He cites the Dalai Lama’s meeting with Desmond Tutu, a fully-grown adult, and how they hugged and kissed upon meeting each other. You’ll notice how Desmond Tutu is not a child put in disproportionate power imbalance by an 87 year-old man.

Another was a Tibetan living in India who only spoke if they remained anonymous “for fear of reprisals from those cancelling the Dalai Lama online.” This, coincidentally, is a real sentence published by a reputable news agency. They claim that it’s traditional for Tibetans to greet each other with their tongues out, and do not explain if it’s traditional to ask to suck children’s tongues.

The academic source is Timothy Grose, an “associate professor of China studies at the Indiana-based Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.” Grose goes on say that this interaction is explicitly being weaponized by supporters of the Communist Party of China (though it’s reported as the “Chinese Communist Party”). He then goes on to explain that these people believe the Dalai Lama is a CIA puppet. The journalist uses a Global Times article to show this as proof. Curiously missing is the 1998 New York Times article where the Dalai Lama’s administration admitted they received “$1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the Central Intelligence Agency.”

I wonder why people might think he’s a CIA asset.

In truth, I hoped to sidestep the topic of CIA meddling against China where possible, as the primary focus should be the 87-year-old man who sexually assaulted a child. But apparently it’s relevant to Grose. So if that’s the case, why should it go unchallenged, like Vice allows it to?

The article then cites China’s official stance on Tibet’s feudal system before 1959, citing a Reuters article that the claim is inaccurate. So what does this article say?

In short, “few serious scholars contest that most Tibetans were bound by birth to estates held by nobles, monasteries or officials.” Tibetans “did not have the right to opt out.” The labour did not fall on individuals but “families or households.” Which allowed some freedom, “academics say.” Meanwhile, full freedom was rented on a yearly basis. The article also notes that whips were still in use by managers in 1959.

This is their defense?

Sameera Khan also makes an appearance, as the face of criticism of the Dalai Lama, rather than anyone with actual cogent critiques. Then the article ends with a statement from a Tibetan filmmaker who said that this action was interpreted negatively because of our “modern, hyper-sexualised society.”

This, truly, is where the crux of the argument lays. Vice and the people interviewed for this hope to frame this instance as a gesture lost in translation, misinterpreted by the fiendish China sympathizers for clout. As a result, core-questions go unanswered. Why is the assault of a child akin to two consensual adults kissing? Why is the Dalai Lama being deeply interwoven with the CIA considered a ridiculous notion simply when reported by China? Why is “it was a joke” an acceptable resason for suggesting child sexual abuse to a child? Why did the Dalai Lama stick out his tongue and inch closer to the boy for so long if it were a joke?

There’s an elephant in this room as well. Our political climate is one where the LGBTQ2S+ community is constantly targeted as pedophiles and groomers, tied in with elites being de facto pedophiles. Drag queens, trans people, and anyone standing up for them are the target of fascist conspiracies of systemic child sexual abuse. Powerful people are assumed to be pedophilic simply because the accuser doesn’t agree with their politics, irrespective of the actual evidence. But the Dalai Lama can abuse a child on stage in full view of the world and Vice feels the need to report on justifications that hinge on anti-China rhetoric.

The political motivations at play become more clear when viewed in that lens, but it’s not the ones Vice hoped to expose.