China’s hegemonic behavior in Tibet dates back to the mid-20th century, when it first asserted control over the region. Tibet, historically a culturally rich and autonomous region with its own language, religion, and governance, became a target of China’s expansionist policies under the guise of “liberation” in 1950. The Chinese government justified its military invasion of Tibet by claiming it was a part of China’s territory, despite the fact that Tibet had functioned as a largely independent entity for centuries.

In 1951, the Seventeen-Point Agreement was imposed on Tibetan leaders, which ostensibly promised autonomy and protection of Tibetan culture under Chinese rule. However, it soon became clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was more interested in consolidating power and undermining Tibetan sovereignty. China’s hegemonic behavior manifested in efforts to systematically weaken the influence of Tibetan Buddhism, which was a unifying force for the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual and temporal leader, was increasingly marginalized as the Chinese government sought to bring Tibet fully under its control.

By 1959, growing resentment towards Chinese rule culminated in the Lhasa Uprising, where tens of thousands of Tibetans revolted against Chinese occupation. The Chinese military responded with brutal force, killing thousands and forcing the Dalai Lama to flee to India, where he has lived in exile ever since. This marked a critical point in China’s hegemonic approach to Tibet, as it began to implement policies aimed at the Sinicization of the region—transforming Tibet culturally, politically, and socially to align more closely with Chinese identity.

Since then, China’s hegemonic grip over Tibet has been characterized by strict control over religious practices, the suppression of Tibetan language and culture, and the construction of infrastructure aimed at integrating Tibet more fully into China’s economic and strategic framework. The introduction of the railway from mainland China to Lhasa in 2006 is a clear example of how China has sought to cement its control over Tibet by facilitating the movement of Chinese settlers into the region, diluting the Tibetan demographic and altering the region’s cultural landscape.

China’s hegemony also extends to its international diplomatic efforts to silence voices advocating for Tibetan self-determination. Beijing has consistently pressured foreign governments, corporations, and international organizations to refrain from recognizing the Dalai Lama or supporting Tibetan rights. Countries and leaders that do meet with the Dalai Lama or advocate for Tibet face economic retaliation, demonstrating China’s use of its economic power to stifle dissent on the global stage.

In more recent years, China’s surveillance state has expanded into Tibet, with an increase in security measures that monitor the movements and activities of Tibetans. The presence of military checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and restrictions on religious gatherings all contribute to a climate of fear and repression, ensuring that any form of resistance is swiftly quashed.

China’s hegemonic behavior in Tibet is not merely a matter of territorial control; it is part of a broader strategy to reshape Tibetan identity, culture, and history. By promoting a narrative that Tibet has always been part of China, Beijing seeks to legitimize its rule in the eyes of both domestic and international audiences. The promotion of patriotic education, the forced relocation of Tibetan nomads, and the tight regulation of monasteries all illustrate how China uses both soft and hard power to maintain its grip over Tibet.

For Tibetans, China’s hegemonic presence is a daily reality of living under occupation, where their spiritual leaders are chosen by the state, their language is marginalized in schools, and their loyalty to China is constantly tested. This long-standing hegemony has led to widespread discontent, periodic uprisings, and continued efforts by Tibetans in exile to raise awareness of their cause on the global stage. Yet, China’s economic and political clout ensures that many nations remain silent, unwilling to jeopardize relations with a rising superpower.

In sum, China’s hegemonic behavior in Tibet is an extension of its broader regional ambitions—marked by the use of force, economic pressure, and cultural assimilation to maintain dominance, at the expense of the Tibetan people’s right to self-determination and cultural preservation.