From Coercion to Resistance: Exiled Tibetans Denounce Forced 17-point Agreement on 74th Anniversary
By Tenzin Chokyi
DHARAMSALA, 23 May: Tibetans in exile resolutely opposed the imposition of the infamous ‘Seventeen-Point Agreement’ as they commemorated the 74th anniversary of the agreement signed under duress today at a panel discussion here in McLeod Ganj.
Despite differing political views, the panellists at the discussion on the historical and political significance of the agreement, organised by the Regional Tibetan Youth Congress (RTYC), Dharamsala, were in unison in their denunciation of the 17-Point Agreement with Tibet.
The panel featured four speakers: Dr Tsangtup Topla, History Professor of the College for Higher Tibetan Studies (Sarah); Tenzin Lekshey, spokesperson of the Central Tibetan Administration(CTA); Tenzin Tsundue, an independence activist and writer; and Dr Lobsang Yangtso from the International Tibet Network (ITN).
They jointly rebuked the document, asserting that it does not even constitute a legitimate agreement, as the Tibetan side was coerced into signing it without the opportunity for genuine negotiations and self-determination.
Tenzin Lekshey, the CTA spokesperson, stated that the CTA views what China calls the “liberation of Tibet” as an occupation. He noted that China lacks concrete historical evidence to claim sovereignty over Tibet, as it has repeatedly altered historical narratives concerning the region.
However, he emphasised that China has been illegitimately using the 17-Point Agreement, signed under duress, as a means to claim its sovereignty over Tibet and continues to do so.
Echoing the same view, Tenzin Tsundue dismissed the notion of the agreement representing a peaceful transition.
“The so-called ‘peaceful liberation’ brought only destruction to Tibet and its people,” he said, arguing that none of the promises, such as the preservation of the Dalai Lama’s position, religious freedom, and cultural autonomy, were ever upheld.
“The 17 points effectively ceased to exist,” he added.
Professor Topla offered a nuanced comparison between the 1951 agreement and the Middle Way Policy, noting that while both address the concept of genuine autonomy under Chinese rule, the essential difference lies in agency.
“One was signed under duress, while the other was proposed by the Tibetans themselves to the Chinese side,” he stated.
In terms of rights and provisions, however, he remarked, “the two documents are almost identical.”
He further stated that the 17-Point Agreement presents particular complexity for the Tibetan side. He explained that Tibet is the only so-called ‘autonomous region’ under Chinese rule to have such an official agreement. Signed in 1951, after Mao came to power in 1949, the document remained in effect for about ten years, until the Dalai Lama formally repudiated it after escaping to India. This unique status, he argued, might complicate Tibet’s political situation.
The Chinese government celebrates this day, 23 May, as the ‘Peaceful Liberation of Tibet’, while Tibetans commemorate and denounce it as an agreement that China forced the Tibetan delegation led by Ngabo Ngawang Jigme to sign the ‘Seventeen-Point Agreement’ on 23 May 1951 in Beijing.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama repudiated the agreement signed under duress once he arrived in exile on 20 June 1959. The Dalai Lama declared the ‘Seventeen-Point Agreement’ as having been thrust upon the then Tibetan government and people by the threat of arms.
