|
The
Pragmatism in Tibetan Nonviolent Politics
By
Senthil
Ram*
June 30, 2004
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.
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).
* Senthil Ram has done his doctoral
research on Tibetan Nonviolent Politics from Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi. Currently he is 'Visiting
Researcher' at the Dept of Peace and Development Research
(Padrigu), Gothenburg University where he is writing a
monograph on Tibetan nonviolent movement.
Copyright © 2004 TFF
& authors
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
Back
to NONVIOLENCE
FORUM
|
|