From classrooms to legal mandates, China’s linguistic strategy in Tibet reveals a deeper struggle for cultural survival and national identity. This piece unpacks the political implications of language in a region at the heart of global human rights debates.
BY PC Bureau
Bhutan’s recent use of “Xizang” instead of “Tibet” in an official statement, carries the signature of China’s poltiicial craftsmen., sparking outrage among Tibetan exile groups and global advocates. Critics claim this shift endorsed China’s campaign to diminish Tibet’s unique cultural and historical identity.
China has been systematically replacing the term “Tibet” with “Xizang,” a linguistic shift that experts say is part of a broader and well-orchestrated strategy to consolidate its narrative on the Tibetan region. This calculated renaming effort, which Beijing has promoted across official statements, international forums, and educational materials, is seen as a deliberate attempt to reinforce China’s sovereignty over Tibet while reshaping global discourse.
The term “Xizang,” which translates to “Western Tsang” in Mandarin, aligns with China’s official classification of Tibet as the Xizang Autonomous Region. By insisting on this nomenclature, China seeks to normalize its political and territorial claims while diminishing the region’s historical and cultural associations with Tibetan autonomy and identity.
A Strategy Rooted in History
China’s efforts to control the Tibetan narrative date back to the 1950s when the Chinese People’s Liberation Army entered Tibet, claiming to “liberate” the region. Since then, Beijing has tightened its grip through policies aimed at assimilating Tibetan culture into mainstream Han Chinese identity. The transition from “Tibet” to “Xizang” is the latest chapter in a decades-long attempt to solidify these claims and weaken global perceptions of Tibet as a distinct and occupied entity.
“Language shapes perception,” says Dr. Mei Lin, a specialist in Chinese geopolitics. “By promoting the term ‘Xizang,’ Beijing is crafting a narrative that frames Tibet as an inseparable part of China, rather than a historically contested region with unique cultural and political identities.”
Soft Power and Global Messaging
China’s linguistic strategy extends beyond its borders. The term “Xizang” is now prevalent in Chinese state media and diplomatic communications, and there are signs of increasing pressure on international organizations and foreign governments to adopt the terminology. This mirrors other territorial disputes where Beijing has used language as a soft-power tool to advance its claims, such as the South China Sea and Taiwan.
By controlling how Tibet is named and discussed internationally, Beijing aims to limit the influence of the Tibetan exile community and the Dalai Lama, who remains a powerful symbol of Tibetan identity and religious freedom. The Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration continue to use the term “Tibet,” preserving its association with the region’s autonomy and spiritual heritage.
ALSO READ:
བོད་དོན་ཞུ་གཏུག་མཐུན་ཚོགས་ཀྱིས་འབྲུག་གཞུང་གིས་བོད་ལ་ཤི་ཙང་ཞེས་བསྒྲགས་པར་སྐྱོན་བརྗོད་མཚན་འཁོད་ཞུ་སྙན་ཞིག རྒྱལ་ས་ལྡི་ལིའི་འབྲུག་རྒྱལ་ཁབ་ཀྱི་གཞུང་ཚབ་ཁང་ལ་ཕུལ་འདུག Tibetan activists urge the Bhutanese government to stop using ‘Xizang’ to refer to Tibet https://t.co/mPde6WGHrd pic.twitter.com/hUdiy1UI7y
— RFATibetan (@rfatibet) March 27, 2025
Implications for the Future
Analysts warn that the shift to “Xizang” could have far-reaching implications. As Beijing continues to assert itself on the global stage, linguistic control may further marginalize Tibetan voices and reduce international awareness of human rights issues in the region. Additionally, the acceptance of “Xizang” in global discourse could make it more difficult for future generations to challenge China’s historical narrative.
“It’s not just about words,” says Tenzin Dorjee, a Tibetan rights advocate. “It’s about erasing a people’s history and silencing their struggle for freedom.”
As the world grapples with rising geopolitical tensions, China’s push to replace “Tibet” with “Xizang” underscores how language can become a powerful weapon in shaping political realities. Whether the international community will resist this narrative shift remains to be seen, but for many Tibetans, the name of their homeland remains a profound symbol of identity and resistance.
Bhutan’s decision sparked a multifaceted response from the Tibetan community, ranging from diplomatic appeals to grassroots activism. The coalition of over 140 organizations, supported by the CTA and Tibetan MPs, called for Bhutan to revert to “Tibet” to honor the shared history between the two regions and resist China’s efforts to erase Tibetan identity.
This controversy underscored the power of language in preserving cultural heritage and the complexities of navigating political narratives in a globally interconnected world. As the debate continued, it remained a critical moment for Bhutan, Tibet, and the international community to reflect on the implications of terminology in upholding historical legacies.
We called on the #Bhutanesegovernment to rectify its use of “Xizang”, revert to the accurate name, #Tibet, and halt any further use of “Xizang” in all communications. pic.twitter.com/s6cPQ92Lnp
— Lobsang Yangtso བློ་བཟང་དབྱངས་མཚོ་ (@lobyang) March 25, 2025
Bhutan’s Use of “Xizang” Sparks Debate Over Tibet’s Identity
On March 17, 2025, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade of the Royal Government of Bhutan issued a press release announcing that Tibetan artists would perform at the Royal Institute of Management in Thimphu, Bhutan, on March 18 and 19, 2025. Notably, the press release referred to Tibet as “Xizang,” a term propagated by the Chinese government. This decision has ignited significant controversy within the Tibetan community, among international observers, and across global Tibet-support organizations, who view it as an alignment with Beijing’s narrative and a potential threat to Tibet’s historical and cultural identity.
China, in response, has staunchly defended the use of “Xizang” as the accurate and official designation for the region. Chinese officials assert that Tibet has been an integral part of China for centuries, framing the term’s use as a reflection of historical and cultural unity. They have rejected criticisms as distortions of fact, accusing detractors—particularly Tibetan exile groups and human rights advocates—of politicizing the issue to fuel separatism and challenge China’s sovereignty. This contention forms part of a larger effort by China to control the narrative surrounding Tibet, leveraging tools like international diplomacy, state-sponsored media, and educational reforms to project its perspective globally.
The debate over “Xizang” versus “Tibet” has intensified in recent years, reflecting broader geopolitical tensions. While specific instances of this shift—such as its use in United Nations documents or by certain Western media outlets—have drawn attention, the trend remains a flashpoint for controversy. Tibetan exile communities and their supporters continue to champion the term “Tibet,” viewing it as a symbol of resistance against what they see as cultural erasure and a denial of their right to self-determination. Meanwhile, China’s insistence on “Xizang” aligns with its increasingly assertive stance on territorial integrity, evident in its diplomatic rhetoric and policies toward other contested regions like Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Despite China’s efforts, the adoption of “Xizang” remains far from universally accepted. Many scholars, activists, and governments persist in using “Tibet” to honor the region’s unique heritage and to protest the perceived suppression of its history. This ongoing linguistic struggle underscores the deep divide between China’s official narrative and the perspectives of those who see the promotion of “Xizang” as part of a systematic campaign to rewrite the past and secure unchallenged dominance over the region.
ALSO READ:
Religious activities in #Xizang are carried out in accordance with the law. Tibetan Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism have coexisted with other religions in the region for generations. Xizang is home to over 1,700 Tibetan Buddhist sites and around 46,000 Buddhist monks and nuns.… pic.twitter.com/XGtx9WPJie
— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) March 28, 2025
The Significance of Terminology: “Tibet” vs. “Xizang”
The term “Xizang,” used by the Chinese government, is widely rejected by Tibetans and their advocates. It is seen as a tool of colonial erasure, aimed at redefining Tibet within the framework of Chinese sovereignty and limiting its scope to the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), a designation that excludes broader historical Tibetan regions such as Amdo and Kham. In contrast, “Tibet” represents the distinct historical, cultural, and geographical identity of the Tibetan people, encompassing their heritage prior to China’s occupation in the 1950s.
Sikyong Penpa Tsering, President of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), the Tibetan Government-in-Exile based in Dharamsala, India, has strongly criticized the use of “Xizang.” He argues that adopting this term plays into Chinese propaganda, diminishing Tibet’s historical sovereignty and reinforcing Beijing’s efforts to control the narrative surrounding Tibet. “We appeal to the international community not to fall into the trap of Chinese propaganda by using Chinese names for Tibetan places,” he stated in January 2025, in response to media coverage of the Dingri earthquake, emphasizing the geopolitical implications of such terminology.
Tibetan and Global Response to Bhutan’s Decision
Bhutan’s use of “Xizang” prompted an immediate and robust reaction from the Tibetan diaspora and their supporters. On March 25, 2025, a coalition of over 140 global Tibet-related organizations delivered a letter to the Bhutanese embassy in New Delhi, urging the Bhutanese government to rectify its use of “Xizang,” revert to the accurate name “Tibet,” and cease using the Chinese term in all future Tibet-related communications. The letter, signed by 144 organizations, was presented by representatives of the Tibet Advocacy Alliance – India, including:
- Sonam Tsering from the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC),
- Geden Tsepphel from the National Democratic Party of Tibet (NDPT),
- Tenzin Lekden from Students for a Free Tibet-India (SFT),
- Dr. Lobsang Yangtso from the International Tibet Network (ITN),
- Tenzin Nyima from the Tibetan Women’s Association (TWA).
ALSO READ: Myanmar Earthquake live: Over 1,000 die; India lends support with Operation Brahma
Dr. Lobsang Yangtso, coordinator of the Tibet Advocacy Alliance – India, explained the coalition’s stance to the Tibet Post International (TPI): “We went to the Bhutanese embassy in New Delhi to submit a letter on March 25, signed by 144 international organizations, calling on the Bhutanese government to rectify its use of the Chinese word ‘Xizang’ instead of the correct name, Tibet, and urge them to stop using the word ‘Xizang’ in all future communications related to Tibet.” She added, “Bhutan uses ‘Xizang’ instead of Tibet in English, we Tibetans protest the Chinese government’s use of Xizang, as the CCP’s aim is to eliminate Tibet from the international scene, which is detrimental to Tibet.”
The letter, addressed to Lyonpo D. N. Dhungyel, Bhutan’s Foreign Minister, outlined several key points:
- Historical and Cultural Ties: Bhutan and Tibet share a long history of religious, cultural, and commercial exchange, making Bhutan’s choice of terminology particularly significant.
- Politicization of “Xizang”: The term is a “highly politicized” label promoted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to tighten control over Tibet and erase its distinct identity.
- Cultural Genocide Concerns: The letter cites UN human rights experts who have condemned China’s policies in Tibet as attempts to assimilate Tibetans into Han Chinese culture, describing them as “cultural genocide.” It argues that using “Xizang” endorses this campaign.
- Request for Action: The coalition respectfully requested that Bhutan revert to using “Tibet” and halt the use of “Xizang” in all communications, as a demonstration of respect for the shared history between Bhutan and Tibet and to uphold Tibet’s unique identity.
Broader Context and Similar Incidents
Bhutan’s adoption of “Xizang” is not an isolated incident. Internationally, institutions have faced similar criticism for using the term:
- British Museum (September 2024): The museum labeled a cultural exhibition covering 500-1000 CE as originating from the “Xizang Autonomous Region.” Following opposition from Tibetan activists and human rights groups, it adjusted the term to “Tibetan Autonomous Region,” though critics argued this still adhered to China’s official designation and failed to reflect Tibet’s broader historical identity. Tibetan groups demanded a full reversion to “Tibet” and a formal apology.
- Musée du Quai Branly, Paris (September 2024): The museum used “Xizang” in its catalog of Tibetan artifacts but reverted to “Tibet” after public backlash.
These incidents highlight a growing trend of Western institutions and media adopting “Xizang,” which critics view as part of China’s strategy to reshape international perceptions of Tibet and undermine its sovereignty prior to Chinese occupation.
Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile’s Reaction
The issue was also raised within the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile during its ninth (budget) session on March 20, 2025. MP Lhagyari Namgyal Dolkar voiced concerns over Bhutan’s reference to a cultural troupe from Tibet as being from the “Xizang Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China.” She noted that this terminology influences perceptions of Tibetan performers and reflects a lack of formal communication between the CTA and Bhutan. She also highlighted the disparity that exiled Tibetans, despite having a vibrant Tibetan Opera Troupe, cannot send performers to Bhutan. Minister Norzin Dolma of the Department of Information and International Relations (DIIR) confirmed that a draft letter addressing the issue has been prepared for the Bhutanese Foreign Ministry, signaling intent to strengthen ties and correct the terminology.
Grassroots Opposition
In Dharamsala, the Students for a Free Tibet organized discussions emphasizing that “Xizang” is not Tibet’s legitimate name and represents an attempt to erase Tibetan history and identity. These grassroots efforts, combined with the coalition’s formal appeal, underscore the Tibetan community’s determination to preserve their cultural heritage against what they perceive as Chinese-driven erasure.
Geopolitical and Cultural Implications
The debate over “Xizang” versus “Tibet” reflects broader geopolitical dynamics and the sensitivity of cultural identities in international relations. Tibetan advocates argue that adopting “Xizang” is a concession to political pressures that undermine Tibet’s rich heritage, effectively endorsing China’s narrative of territorial expansion and cultural assimilation. As Penpa Tsering has cautioned, such language carries significant implications, particularly as China seeks to eliminate “Tibet” from the international stage.
