It’s not unusual for independence movements to count violence and intimidation among the tools at their disposal. So-called liberation groups from Spain to Sri Lanka, from Northern Ireland to Chechnya, determined at one point or another that it was acceptable to harm innocents and destroy property if it brought them closer to their nationalistic dream. But Tibet has always been different, and that makes today’s violent turn all the more disappointing.
From the CBC:
A U.S.-funded radio station says at least two people have been killed in clashes between demonstrators and Chinese security forces in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa.
Radio Free Asia says troops using both live ammunition and tear gas fired on crowds torching vehicles and Chinese-owned shops in the centre of the ancient city.
The radio station quoted witnesses as saying two bodies were seen lying on the ground in the Barkor area, a shopping district in Lhasa where the protests have been centred.
It said other reports put the death toll higher, but gave no figures.
Tibet is a cradle of Buddhism, and has been for something in the area of 1,350 years. Its tradition of non-violence is just as old, and the Buddha himself is said to have stopped an invading army by sitting and meditating in their path. Upon his conversion, India’s powerful king Ashoka renounced his conquering ways and built peace pillars to underscore his newfound pacifism. Buddhism preaches “compassion toward all sentient beings,” even in the face of brutality, and although some high-ranking monks are said to have sanctioned Japan’s WWII invasions, it seems safe to say that there has never really been a Buddhist war — something few spiritual traditions can claim.
Supporters of Tibet’s independence movement have gained worldwide renown for their insistence on using only non-violent means to achieve their goal, from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Dalai Lama to the regular Tibetans who had so far struggled peacefully to maintain their cultural and spiritual traditions. But as I write this, police cars and shops are burning in Lhasa and rocks are flying at Chinese soldiers.
Today the world will criticize image-conscious China for its heavy-handed response to Tibetan calls for freedom, and the criticisms will be justified in full. But few will argue that in burning cars and torching innocent people’s livelihoods, the protesters cede some of their moral high ground and give their opponents an excuse to clamp down all the harder. I’m not going to weigh in on the question of Tibetan independence in this post, but I’m disappointed when any group, noble though its goal may be, compromises values that are integral to its identity in order to fight a threat of any kind — seeking to safeguard its morals and beliefs but sacrificing both of these in the struggle to do so. We’re seeing this in Washington, but I never thought I’d see it in Tibet.
The violence, of course, isn’t representative of all or most Tibetans (or Buddhists for that matter), but it will, in some eyes, deligitimize a struggle that has always counted on worldwide sympathy and support as its most powerful — and really only — tool. While I can understand the frustration of a people who feel their culture is being systematically destroyed, a violent response only pushes their political goals — and their spiritual ones — further into the future. If I considered myself Buddhist I’d feel all the more let down.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Theo // Mar 16, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Timely and sad thoughts. Raises an interesting question: do means justify ends? And why does it appear that we think so?
But I want to mainly focus on something else. What is a “Buddhist war”? Consider Sri Lanka. The government has attempted to rally Sinhalese together both around Sinhala as a language vs. Tamil, and around Buddhism as a religion vs. Hinduism. Does that make it a “Buddhist war”?
Now, one might think that this is different from, e.g., the Crusades, in the sense that people interpreted the content of Christianity as commanding a war (as opposed to just being a referent object for identity, serving the same function as putative language, descent, supporting Rangers and not Celtic, whatever). On that argument, it is just the form of Buddhism that matters in Sri Lanka, and not its content, and it is content (or people’s good-faith reading of it) that makes a war a “Buddhist,” “Christian,” or whatever, war.
But I’m not sure that distinction cuts much ice with me. Any war has a bunch of different motivations involved, all bound together; you could attribute the First Crusade equally to Pope Urban II’s ambitions as to anyone’s reading of Christianity. Moreover, any reading of the Bible that produces the Crusades is likely pretty tenuous, and you could make an opposite case pretty easily; and so there’s nothing naturally violent about Christianity or any other religion–only what we, as autonomous agents, read into it. In any event, Shoko Asahara used Buddhist texts, including parts of Tibetan Buddhism, as the ideological basis of Aum Shinrikyo; for him they justified spreading nerve gas in the Tokyo subway.
What I’m getting at is this: it seems to me that Buddhism, like any other referent category, is susceptible to violent manipulation. My evidence is Sri Lanka and Aum Shinrikyo. Even if Buddhism doesn’t seem to be used as often as other religions to motivate one side of a war, my guess is that this has more to do with geopolitics (Southeast Asia, 1945-90, had other dominant conflicts) than with Buddhism as such.
The content of Buddhism is often enough to help people overcome an incitement to violence. So, to cite only the most prominent examples, are Hinduism (Gandhi), Islam (X), Christianity (King), Judaism (Buber), and so on.
None of this takes away from the central tragedy of today’s Tibet. In a way it makes it all the more striking. It suggests that Buddhism did not, by itself, make Tibetans into practitioners of non-violence. It was also by their own personal struggles that they overcame something we’re all susceptible to, regardless of religion.
2 B // Mar 16, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Wow Theo! I don’t think we’ve met, but I am quite impressed!
To get back to Mark’s post: I think that part of the disappointment you seem to be experiencing comes from the shattering of an illusion. Religion is dependent on the human element yet also can be drawn downward by that same human element. The principles are only concepts unless practiced by people. Does that mean that their practice will always be perfect? No. If people are imperfect and do not always have the concentration and/or motivation to dedicate themselves to those practices then our illusions of the anticipated outcomes don’t jive with what we see. In some cases the practices themselves might be flawed. In most cases, I’d think that this is simply a reflection that we need to be able to distinguish the principles from specific examples of their manifestation. If Buddhism resonates with you then you need to look to the values and practices that appeal to you. When you fail to act accordingly is that your shortcoming, that of the system, is it a shortcoming at all? In Judaism the term commonly translated at “sin” in the Christian tradition in fact translates as “missing the mark.” So the Jewish tradition would take the position that it was the actions of the human element that didn’t quite get it right. Hardly a reason to blame the values themselves; in this case those of Buddhism. The illusion that the values themselves could somehow overcome the human element itself, despite its own efforts, is one that is just as well broken. A positive result, I would say.
Another point I wanted to respond to was this concept of a “Buddhist war.” The sanctioning of Japanese crimes in WW2 is hardly a minor point, and indeed Buddhism has often been criticized for its ‘passive’ stance. “Compassion toward all sentient beings” only goes so far. Sometimes action is required. To refuse to get involved is a crime of negligence and in many traditions such passivity is comparable to active warfare.
Breaking illusions is often a healthy move toward growth.
3 mark // Mar 17, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I wouldn’t argue that any of the major world religions are inherently violent, but as far as I know (which may not be very far), Buddhism is the only one that bans violence outright, for any purpose whatsoever. There is no holy war in Buddhism — no godly crusade or righteous retribution. No capital punishment, no slaughtering of villagers, no “purifying” of decadent cities and non-believers, no warring gods and no pillars of fire destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. Violence is not a regrettable last resort in Buddhism, or an unfortunate action reserved for only the direst of circumstances — it’s outright unacceptable, no matter what.
Any ideology can be twisted to serve the motives of a charismatic despot, and just about any group of fervent, unquestioning believers can be transformed into an angry mob. For that reason, I’m not surprised that some general out there is swelling his ranks with a spiritual call to arms. But while other religious traditions can be rightfully said to encourage non-violence, Buddhism embodies it, and makes no-compromise pacifism an integral part of what it is to be a Buddhist.
Incidentally, how’s this for scary? From the Guardian:
4 Jocelyne // Mar 17, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Your last sentence ”But while other religious traditions can be rightfully said to encourage non-violence, Buddhism embodies it, and makes no-compromise pacifism an integral part of what it is to be a Buddhist.” is right on.
Maybe visiting the Dalai Lama web site http://www.dalailama.com/ to keep in touch with the Buddhism position is a good idea because the chinese propaganda is pretty heavy.
5 Kevin // Jul 16, 2008 at 8:38 am
While I am no less appalled than anyone at the violence in Lhasa, I do take exception to the suggestion that the Han Chinese who are strangling Tibetan culture into non-existence are innocents.
Were the bystanders who were blown to bits when the Warsaw ghetto rose “innocent?”
No, they were Nazis. The law of Karma teaches, among other things, that what goes around, comes around. Not a moral judgment: simply an element of the way the universe works.
Terrible to say, but true: the Han Chinese in Lhasa deserve to die. (So, too, do the Crusaders who thought they could overrun Iraq because they are such good, clean Christian boys and girls, but that’s another rant.)
6 mark // Jul 18, 2008 at 11:50 am
Even if I thought violent independence movements worked — which I don’t — dragging civilians out of their homes and beating them to death is hardly the way to convince a government to treat your community with respect. On a moral level, it’s indefensible, but even on a practical level, it just gives the authorities an excuse to crack down all the harder. This kind of violent protest is a lose-lose proposition for everyone.
Leave a Comment