Saddened by both rioting Tibetans and the resulting Chinese crackdown, the Dalai Lama has threatened to “resign” as Tibet’s political leader if his followers don’t abandon violence as an avenue of protest.
From the BBC:
“If they choose violence as the means to achieve their political ends then the Dalai Lama cannot lead that movement,” says secretary Tenzin Taklha, speaking from Dharamsala in northern India where the Dalai Lama lives in exile.
Though he’d be stepping down as head of the Tibetan government-in-exile, he would remain the Tibetans’ spiritual leader as Dalai Lama — a role that is his for life and can’t be relinquished.
UPDATE: In response to B’s questions, maybe someone else could better answer this, but the Dalai Lama’s position as political leader seems to me a largely ceremonial and inspirational one, since in exile he has no real political power. That said, he’s an internationally recognized proponent for increased Tibetan freedoms, and his resignation could mean that his movement receives less international visibility — which is pretty much the only tool it has right now. I imagine that he would delegate the political leadership role to a prominent, like-minded Tibetan official, but again, given that a government in exile doesn’t really have any governing powers, the newcomer would likely be another figurehead — only without the clout that comes with being the internationally respected and almost universally admired Dalai Lama.
So essentially, I think Tibet would be worse off without him as political leader. My impression is that as far he’s concerned, his personal convictions against leading a violent movement supercede his duty to lead politically. I’m sure he knows that a handful of violent protesters can’t delegitimize the goal of the vast, peaceful majority of Tibetans. For what it’s worth, my guess is that he’s bringing up the possibility in order to shame the rioting Tibetans who revere him into abandoning violence as an outlet for their frustrations.
One clarification: though some Tibetans seek independence from China, the Dalai Lama has always said he wants more autonomy for Tibet within China — particularly the freedom to maintain Tibetan cultural and spiritual practices — not a separate nation.
From an open letter by the Dalai Lama, posted on his site:
Since the Chinese Government has accused me of orchestrating these protests in Tibet, I call for a thorough investigation by a respected body, which should include Chinese representatives, to look into these allegations. Such a body would need to visit Tibet, the traditional Tibetan areas outside the Tibet Autonomous Region, and also the Central Tibetan Administration here in India. In order for the international community, and especially the more than one billion Chinese people who do not have access to uncensored information, to find out what is really going on in Tibet, it would be of tremendously helpful if representatives of the international media also undertook such investigations.
Whether it was intended or not, I believe that a form of cultural genocide has taken place in Tibet, where the Tibetan identity has been under constant attack. Tibetans have been reduced to an insignificant minority in their own land as a result of the huge transfer of non-Tibetans into Tibet. The distinctive Tibetan cultural heritage with its characteristic language, customs and traditions is fading away. Instead of working to unify its nationalities, the Chinese government discriminates against these minority nationalities, the Tibetans among them.
[…] I believe the demonstrations and protests taking place in Tibet are a spontaneous outburst of public resentment built up by years of repression in defiance of authorities that are oblivious to the sentiments of the local populace. They mistakenly believe that further repressive measures are the way to achieve their declared aim of long-term unity and stability.
On our part, we remain committed to taking the Middle Way approach and pursuing a process of dialogue in order to find a mutually beneficial solution to the Tibetan issue.
4 responses so far ↓
1 B // Mar 18, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Would the Dalai Lama’s ability to help the situation be improved by abdicating his political authority? Who would replace the Dalai Lama as political leader of Tibet, and what effect would that have on the protestors and the situation at-large?
2 B // Mar 18, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I might be able to buy the ’shaming followers into renouncing violence’ idea, but the rest is beyond me.
1. If his political authority is “empty” to begin with (ie. has no state to rule) then what is the significance of his abdicating that authority?
2. If there is some meaning to his political authority then how does abdicating it to someone else accomplish anything?
3. I cannot relate to the idea of a “leader” abdicating their authority in a situation like this. Although ultimately that would bring us back to the point we’ve already arrived at. That is, if you cannot do anything to help the situation, to LEAD, then step aside for someone who can.
4. And if it comes to that and there is someone who can step up as political leader to control the protestors and make political progress and the Dalai Lama continues on only as spiritual leader then that would lead to a “religious”/”secular” (for lack of better terms) split. At that point perhaps the Dalai Lama would need to oversee his people spiritually but allow them to pursue their own political goals, whether or not they are congruous with Buddhist philosophies. If that were ever to come to pass then Tibetans would lead two lives: a political one through which they pursue their political dreams, and a spiritual one: which fuels them, but apparently cannot be relied upon to achieve their practical goals.
This could be a very interesting anthropological development.
3 mark // Mar 19, 2008 at 11:36 am
Well, again, I’m no expert on any of this, but it seems to me that the significance of his resignation would be entirely personal — he’s not going to compromise his values by leading a movement that has violent elements. At the end of the day, it seems less to me like a resignation from a position and more like a personal dissociation from a movement with goals he supports but methods he doesn’t.
As for the “two lives,” I don’t really see the split. Having two like-minded people as Tibet’s political and spiritual heads wouldn’t create any divide that I can see.
4 B // Mar 19, 2008 at 4:20 pm
1. If it is a “personal dissociation from a movement” then he was never effectively the leader so much as ‘along for the ride.’ My point there was that I don’t see a true leader as one who steps aside to dissociate himself from those s/he is leading. Granted, if there is someone who would be more effective then by all means. That I can accept. But to dissociate oneself based on the population’s actions is hardly what I would consider leadership.
2. The “split” I was referring to is something we don’t commonly consider in “modern” life. If you look at many religious traditions (I don’t know enough to claim that it would be “all”.) you’ll see that the term “religion” doesn’t appear in the texts. This is because there was no distinction between a religious life and a secular life. That is, the philosophy simply IS the way of life. Whether in spiritual matters or every day life the “way” IS the way of life. You aren’t a different person when you vote or when you go to work as you are in your “religious” settings.
For those Tibetans (in this case) who are left to go about their own tactics in achieving the common goal they effectively face the “split” I mentioned. Whereas before some might have LIVED a Buddhist life, now they would be faced with a realization that Buddhism might be a deeply spiritual part of their life and a large part of the way they live and think. But they’d also be acknowledging that Buddhism’s limits are reached when they wish to pursue their practical goal of achieving Tibetan X status within China, independent from China, next to China, etc…
That was the “split” I was referring to.
I don’t know that either of my two points clarified anything. Perhaps I am not being clear, or my points are too subtle to distinguish verbally.
Leave a Comment