Violent protests in Tibet and a subsequent crackdown by the Beijing government have created a worldwide outpouring of sympathy for the Tibetan cause.
In India, where the Dalai Lama lives in exile, politicians, celebrities, and common citizens have sided with the underdogs. But those who support the idea of an independent Tibet are misguided, and Indians who do so are hypocritical to boot.
Here's why. The land claimed by Tibet's government-in-exile is far larger than the territory ruled by the Dalai Lama before he fled to India in 1959. Greater Tibet covers an incredible 25 percent of the entire People's Republic of China (PRC).
There is no legal or historical basis whatsoever for this claim. Moreover, were such a nation to split from China, it would feel incomplete without Arunachal Pradesh, often referred to as Southern Tibet.
The case for an independent state composed of the smaller Tibet Autonomous Region is also questionable. For centuries, theocratic rulers of the Roof of the World accepted the land was part of the Chinese empire. This elite declared independence during a period of instability in the early twentieth century, but China never accepted it.
It's true the fifties and sixties were dreadful for the region, but we must bear in mind that the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were disastrous for China as a whole.
Recent years have witnessed an increased tolerance of traditional culture by Chinese authorities, alongside a rise in Tibetans' standard of living. Thus far, the liberalisation has stopped short of negotiations with the Dalai Lama, which is unfortunate, for he is one of the great moral figures of our time and has signalled he would accept genuine autonomy instead of the complete independence he had previously sought.
Tibet's best hope lies in the ruling party developing a respect for rights and freedoms throughout the PRC, and that's what world leaders ought to try and influence. However, that's not the way most Indians appear to see the matter.
The former foreign minister Yashwant Sinha argued we should intervene to secure Tibet's freedom: "We want good relations with China. I am not saying let's have war with China. But if we reach a point of conflict over Tibet, we should be prepared for that eventuality."
This is mind-bogglingly stupid. Indian forces have less chance of driving the People's Liberation Army from Lhasa than Harbhajan Singh has of scoring hundreds in each of his next fifty innings. Sinha didn't stop there. "We, along with the brave Tibetan activists, will not relent till we get justice from China", he thundered.
"If need be, I am prepared to march to Lhasa in support of this movement." George Fernandes, former defence minister, also advocated Tibetan independence, repudiating the policy of his prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee.
The reason such sentiments are not just ill-informed but hypocritical is that we have our own secessionist movements to deal with, and there is no public or political pressure to resolve those. The most prominent, the problem of Jammu and Kashmir is the elephant in the room which Indians debating Tibet are doing their darndest to ignore.
The two issues make for an interesting comparison. No nation regards Tibet as disputed territory, while every country, India included, places J