—which you probably know, so I'm very familiar with the presence in India.
I actually don't have a question. I have an opinion that I want to ask you about. If you look at what's happening in Tibet right now, there are certain things that are happening overtly and there are certain things that are happening subtly. When we talk about the belt and road initiative or the construction of airports, it seems to be that successively there's a greater and greater impact of China in Tibet. If you also look at the fact that two million nomads from Tibet have now been moved into the urban areas, that's another attempt to disrupt that way of life. Also, if you look at the surrounding countries, co-operation agreements have been signed to make sure that exiled groups are controlled or watched.
The question I have is this. If you look at the question of succession, it seems to me there's a diametrically opposed view. China wants to know who the successor is, and the Dalai Lama has said that is a religious question that will be solved. According to the Dalai Lama—he's now, I believe, 80 or 81 years old—that question will be answered either in his late 80s or when he's 90. But during that period of time, when, though there will be a successor, the successor is not known yet—and I know this is a very philosophical question—does China not then have more time to have a greater impact in Tibet, when there is an understanding that there will be another leader after the Dalai Lama? What is your opinion on that? You have parallel tracks: you have a religious track, where they don't know who the next Dalai Lama will be, and you have China, which is telling you that they have to approve the next successor. It seems to me that when that person emerges, there will be conflict at that point in time because China will want to know who the bona fide successor is, but that successor will not be chosen until the right and appropriate time.