DHARAMSALA, India, (May 2) IPS - Tibetan exiles in India are divided on whether the Tibetan goal should be to establish an autonomous region within China or to fight for full independence, an issue that is to be decided in a referendum.

A significant section of Tibetan youth opposes the referendum, scheduled for July, altogether. Posters urging "Say No to the Referendum" are up everywhere here, particularly in upper Dharamsala, which is the seat of the Tibetan government-in-exile.

These have been put up by the Tibetan Youth Congress, which commands a fair amount of support among young men and women. Pointing to the 120,000 Tibetans who have lost their lives under Chinese occupation, they say that there can be no compromise.

The holding of the referendum was recommended by the 12th Assembly of Tibetan Deputies (the Tibetan Parliament) last year following the Dalai Lama's declaration that his "Middle Path" of negotiating a settlement with China had failed.

Whether the ballot is held as scheduled and what it yields is likely to be determined by three factors: internal divisions within the 130,000-strong Tibetan exiled community, U.S policy towards China, and international public opinion on China as it focusses on the transfer of Hong Kong to the mainland.

All these are interlinked. For instance, President Clinton's "walk-in" meeting with the Dalai Lama on April 23 has somewhat strengthened the hands of the moderate pro-autonomy voices among Tibetan expatriates, raising as it does the hope that Clinton will exert some pressure over the Chinese leadership to negotiate seriously with the Dalai Lama.

But this gain of the pro-autonomy group may be limited. Pro-independence advocates note that Clinton did not grant the Dalai Lama a appointment, but instead used the stratagem of "walking into" the office of Vice President Al Gore, who had agreed to meet the Tibetan spiritual-temporal leader.

"This only proves," said a young Tibetan, who insisted on anonymity, "that Washington cannot be expected to do much for the Tibetan cause. American economic interest in the booming Chinese economy is far too strong."

Internal differences over the goals and methods of the Tibetan resistance among the exiled community have become sharper over the past few years. The Dalai Lama increasingly favors the "one country, two systems" approach. He openly declared himself in favor of it on March 27 during his visit to Taiwan and suggested he would be satisfied with a high degree of autonomy for Tibet within China.

Meanwhile there have been some indirect talks with the Chinese leadership, though no results have ensued.

The Dalai Lama's opponents believe that it would be impossible to live with dignity under Chinese occupation, given Beijing's past record of violent repression, extensive human rights abuse, and closure of all but 13 of Tibet's 6,254 monasteries.

Short of full independence for all of Tibet, they want independence for at least the core of that territory.

Political differences among Tibetans are compounded by religious ones too. One section of the community increasingly questions the Dalai Lama's spiritual authority. And a new cult, which worships a deity called Dorji Shugden, is increasingly coming into violent conflict with the Dalai Lama's followers.

The "protector deity" is part of the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon, according to its worshippers. But the Dalai Lama has condemned the worship, as it is "not in the interest of the Tibetan people." The deity belongs exclusively to the Geluppa sect, the largest of the four sects in Tibetan Buddhism.

The mixture of political and spiritual dissension has proved explosive. On Feb. 4, Lobsang Gyaltso, principal of the Tibetan Institute of Dialectics, and two of his pupils were murdered at Mcleodgung near here. Gyaltso was a vocal critic of the Dorji Shugden cult. The police suspect the cult's involvement in the killing. Further violence could affect the referendum.

The Dalai Lama's critics accuse the government-in-exile of distorting the terms of the referendum. The propositions to be voted on are not mutually exclusive. While two of the four choices to be voted on pertain to the goal (full independence or autonomy), a third refers to a method or procedure (satyagraha, or peaceful resistance). The fourth is "self-determination" which intersects with the first two.

Karma Yeshi, vice-president of the Tibetan Youth Congress, charges that the Tibetan leadership has obliterated the word "Rangzen" (independence) from the Constitution of the Tibetan government-in-exile. "This is like handcuffing ourselves and killing the aspirations of all our people."

Sentiments such as these carry more and more weight. In January of this year, the Tibetan leadership conceded during a special six-day discussion session here that it has failed to bring Beijing to the negotiating table, but reiterated its resolve to continue with its peaceful struggle for freedom.

A year ago, the Dalai Lama admitted: "I must now recognize that my approach has failed to produce any progress either for substantive negotiations or in contributing to the overall improvement of the situation in Tibet. Moreover, I am conscious of the fact that a growing number of Tibetans, both inside as well as outside of Tibet, have been disheartened by my conciliatory stand not to demand complete independence for Tibet."

These admissions of failure have weakened the pro-autonomy side. However, the pro-independence advocates lack a clear strategy for reaching their goal. Few of them can say how they could wage a successful armed struggle against a regime that demonstrated its ruthlessness in Tiananmen in 1989.

The issue of goals and strategies is far from settled among the 110,000 Tibetans exiled in India. Even a referendum may not clinch it. Indeed, it remains possible that the referendum will not even take place in July.

If the leadership of the government-in-exile fears embarrassment by a strong pro-independence vote, it may call the referendum off. The Tibetan Youth Congress may also demand a boycott. In that case, an informal or preliminary opinion poll may take place, rather than a full referendum.