The Dalai Lama, the chief architect of Tibetan nonviolent politics, is a staunch follower of Mahatma Gandhi. His endorsement of the Universal Declaration of Nonviolence which states that “all forms of violence, especially war, are totally unacceptable as a means to settle disputes between and among nations, groups and persons” made him radical among other religious and political leaders (McCarthy 1991). He strongly believed that nonviolent resistance is for the strong willed and the principled who refuse to rely on the illogic of stopping the enemy’s bad violence with one’s good violence (McCarthy 1991). He said that it is shortsighted to believe that a lasting solution can be found through the use of force. He always expressed his firm conviction in following a nonviolent path. According to him, force and confrontation can only bring temporary gains (DIIR 1995). Therefore the Dalai Lama encouraged nonviolent resistance inside Tibet. Though he acknowledged that “Tibetan people expressing their deep sorrow through nonviolence is the correct way” (DalaiLama 1995: 22-23), he did not put in plain words the dynamics of Tibetan nonviolent resistance. And that makes the holistic understanding of the ongoing Tibetan nonviolent movement hard to grasp unlike Gandhian or Kingian movements. Therefore as a starting point here I focus on the pragmatic aspect of the Tibetan nonviolence by briefly outlining the Buddhist and Gandhian influences.
Nonviolence is principally embedded in Tibetan polity due to Buddhist influence. Firstly, at the core, Buddhists believe that suffering is the karmic result of not adhering to the path of nonviolence, be it in Tibet or elsewhere. Since the suffering the Tibetan people experience now are due to previous violent deeds or Karma, the only way for Tibetans to come out of this vicious cycle of suffering is by following the path of nonviolence (DalaiLama 1996). By being nonviolent and not retaliating they are not accumulating any new negative impressions that will bring more suffering in future. And only that will work against the previous violent deeds. According to this philosophy the oppressor who uses violence deserves sympathy because he unleashes a new karmic process that will bring him suffering in the future (DalaiLama 1996). On the other hand, for the victim the suffering ends here. Secondly, Buddhists believe that human nature is essentially nonviolent. Therefore the Dalai Lama argues that it is “… in our own interest to encourage that nature, to make it live within us, to leave room for it to develop.” He continued, “When passion no longer is controlled you end up with situations such as what is happening in Bosnia. This is why given the causes and consequences of such an attitude, I have opted for nonviolence and will continue to do so” (DalaiLama 1996: 129). Thirdly, for a Buddhist all forms of life are sacred. He considers life as precious since it gives him the chances to attain enlightenment- where he is freed from the cycle of birth and rebirth. Therefore killing in general becomes the worst negative act because the person killed was deprived of the chance of becoming enlightened (Samphel 2000). Particularly, killing the enemy is ruled out since he is the best teacher of patience and tolerance – virtues vital for enlightenment. Therefore the Buddhist philosophy of no-harm as a way of life is incorporated in Tibetan politics as a ‘principled approach’ rather than as a tool to handle conflict.
| Would you be reading this now, if it wasn’t useful to you? Get more quality articles in the future |
The concept of Truth in Tibetan nonviolence is the meeting point between Gandhian and Buddhist philosophy. There are two truths for a Buddhist: absolute and relative or conventional truth. Absolute truth is the ultimate reality of all existence which transcends duality and which is the source of all actions and creativity. According to Gandhi who coined the term Satyagraha, it means ‘holding on to truth’ or ‘truth force.’ Truth is soul or spirit. Therefore it is known as ‘soul force’. According to Prof. Rinpoche, absolute truth cannot be the basis of a Gandhian model nonviolent action, Satayagraha, because the aims and modes of Satyagraha and the thoughts and behaviour of the Satyagrahi himself cannot be comprehended through absolute truth (SWSSR 1999). Therefore the basis of Tibetan Satyagraha is relative or conventional truth. It excludes the use of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and therefore not competent to punish the opponents (SWSSR 1999). Though Gandhian model of Satyagraha is not effectively applied in Tibet due to lack of minimum civil, political and legal rights, according to Ardley (2002: 178), a Satayagraha suitable for Tibetans can be developed in Tibet in its familiar Tibetan Buddhist context in the similar fashion of “engaged Buddhists during Vietnam war” combining a “strict democratic, multi-party system” in Exile .
Though nonviolence as a political tool of Tibetan policy sounds very natural given the nonviolence potential of Tibetans and the Buddhist tradition and culture, it is not so. First, it is important not to overlook the violent potential of the Tibetan people as witnessed during foreign invasions on Tibet including the British invasion of 1904. Tibetans bravely fought the advancing Chinese Peoples Liberation Army in 1950. Later the Khampa warriors courageously used the guerilla tactics of ‘hit and run’ with the clandestine support of CIA. In general, like any other cultures, Tibetans too – though less prominently after Buddhism became state religion – held on to weapons, waged wars and maimed people for land and wealth. Secondly, the political transformations in Buddhist countries are not necessarily peaceful. For instance, in Thailand, Burma, and Sri Lanka Buddhism was used to justify the violence of protagonists. Therefore at the political level, the Tibetan nonviolence is more of a choice than a natural one. By saying this I do not intent to undermine the nonviolence capabilities of Tibetans as people practicing the religion of peace, Buddhism. What I want to stress is the deliberate choice of nonviolence becoming a political means with roots in Tibetan Buddhism.
Firstly, for the Dalai Lama nonviolence is the most effective and appropriate method to resolve conflicts. He firmly believes in nonviolence as a political technique. He pointed out, “recent events such as the end of dictatorial regimes of Marcos in the Philippines and Pinochet in Chile, as well as the changes in Moscow and other countries, show quite clearly that the upheavals in the heart of the population were…the result of nonviolent action” (DalaiLama 1996: 126). Further, he understood the importance of Nonviolence for a friendly neighbourhood. Since China and Tibet are always neighbours – past, present and future – he argued that they have to have a peaceful and harmonious relationship. Therefore it is essential that the problems dividing them should be resolved in a nonviolent way. Using violence in such situations leaves people with lot of content and enmity for generations and thereby results in further violence. He gives the example of protracted conflicts like Israel and Palestine and Bosnia where violence was used to curtail violence (DalaiLama 1996). He also gave the examples of Philippines, Chile, and erstwhile Soviet Union, where democracy has been established through nonviolent means.
Secondly, nonviolence is used in politics as a result of the understanding that means of the struggle should not contradict its social goals. Violence cannot be used to create a political system based on self-government and grassroots participation and bring about peace (Zieolanka 1986). Only through nonviolent methods one can attain a nonviolent result. It is also important to note the connections between nonviolence and democracy as established by the Dalai Lama. Tibetan democracy essentially is the Dalai Lama’s democracy or a ‘one man’s democracy’ and it has “evolved from above rather than from below” (Kvaerne and Thargyal 1993: 34). “Tibetan democracy is different from that of other countries because it did not cost any struggles or human lives. It originated from the political incumbent himself” (Kvaerne and Thargyal 1993). Another crucial element of the pragmatic nonviolent approach is recognition that both parties have needs that have to be resolved. Therefore Tibetans have the dedication to pursue problem-solving negotiations as exemplified by the peace initiative like Five Point Peace Plan to achieve a solution equally beneficial to Tibetans and Chinese.
Thirdly, in the Tibetan situation violence is not considered as a realistic option against Chinese and is seen as counter-productive to the Tibetans’ objective. Even though non-governmental organizations like the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) rhetorically vouch for a ‘violent means of struggle,’ the Dalai Lama strongly believes that nonviolence is the most effective means to deal with the Chinese under the present circumstances. The Dalai Lama also feels that a violent struggle against the highly powerful China is an impossible task. The Dalai Lama said, “…I ask the hotheads, let them visualize this. If we follow violent methods, a few hundred guns will not be effective. At least we need several thousand, at least a few thousand… around 100,000. Now from where will we get these weapons? Is there some country willing to supply us with them?” (Shiromany 1998: 185-186). In another place, the Dalai Lama reiterated that no one would give weapons to Tibetans and even though someone gives, transferring it to Tibet is not easy. “If half a million Tibetans took up arms against China, it would be suicidal.” He believed that an armed uprising would be the best excuse for China to obliterate the Tibetans from the face of earth (Samphel 2000: 24). Further, the dwindling Tibetan population definitely discourages the violent option and promotes nonviolence as the latter could save lot of lives.
Lastly, the Tibetan nonviolent position mobilized support from many corners including the Chinese people. The Dalai Lama said, “…because of our nonviolent attitude, Chinese people both within China and abroad have already expressed sympathy and concern for our cause and as a result openly demonstrating their support for Tibet’s struggle for independence” (DalaiLama 1996: 128). He firmly believes that through nonviolence they can arrive at a solution that is mutually beneficial to Chinese and Tibetans. According to the Dalai Lama the tremendous international support Tibetans now enjoy than ever is due to the nonviolent character of the movement (DalaiLama 1996: 128). The Dalai Lama often acknowledged the media sympathy to nonviolent movement and its importance to Tibet cause. He believed that media interest on Tibet has attracted “people the world over … [to] the Tibetan cause.” Therefore the Dalai Lama attached “great importance to this interest… [and] the fact that our cause will gain recognition in this way will, I believe inspire the Chinese government to show greater restraint in its dealings with the Tibetan people, and to take their needs into account” (DalaiLama 1996: 124). Therefore the Tibetan nonviolent struggle has indispensable pragmatic elements where nonviolence is realistically used as only one of several possible methods with which to respond to the conflict situation with China for a mutually beneficial settlement.
References:
Ardley, Jane. 2002. The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives. London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
DalaiLama, The. 1995. In His Holiness the Dalai Lama: Speeches, Statements, Articles and Interviews. Dharamsala: Department of Information and International Relations.
DalaiLama, The. 1996. Beyond Dogma: North Atlantic Books.
DIIR. 1995. Speeches, Statements, Articles, and Interviews, 1987- June 1995. Dharamsala: Department of Information and International Relations.
Kramer, Katherine, and Yeshua Moser Puangsuwan. 2000. Truth is Our Only Weapon: The Tibetan Nonviolent Struggle. SE Asia: Nonviolence International.
Kvaerne, Per, and Rinzin Thargyal. 1993. Bon, Buddhism and Democracy: The Building of a Tibetan National Identity. Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS).
McCarthy, Colman. 1991. The Dalai Lama’s Radical Nonviolence. The Washington Post, 1 May.
Samphel, Thubten. 2000. An Overview of the Non-Violent Struggle of the Tibetan People. In Breaking Silence: In Support of Tibet. Dharamsala: Tibetan Youth Congress and Friends of Tibet.
Shiromany, A A, ed. 1998. The Political Philosophy of His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama: Selcted Speeches and Writings. New Delhi: Tibetan Parliamentary and Policy Research Centre.
SWSSR. 1999. Selected Writings and Speeches: A collection of Selected Writings and Speeches on Buddhism and Tibetan Culture by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche. Saranath, Varanasi: Alumni of Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies.
Zieolanka, Jan. 1986. Strengths and Weaknesses of Nonviolent Action: The Polish Case. Orbis (Greenwich, Conn.) 30 (1).
