For someone following the Tibetan struggle for independence for a while now, the latest spate of violence was a major shock and an alarm bell of sorts which seems poised to revolutionise our perceptions of the Tibetan issue and the nature of the conflict. The world had almost taken it for granted that the economic and military might of China had for all practical purposes sealed the struggle and crushed the rebellion. Even otherwise, the Tibetans were too peaceful to rise up in arms, to abandon their Buddhist faith of non-violence, and 'stoop' as low as to resort to violence. Or so we thought.
This recent outburst of violent protests now begs the uncomfortable question the largely politically correct media and intelligentsia avoids: Would Tibet have ever received the international attention it is receiving now had it not resorted to violence? Had it continued on the much celebrated path of non-violence and forgiveness, of ahimsa and क्षमा (forgiveness), quietly suffering, would the world be listening to Tibet's anguished voice? Would China have been forced into damage control and started the PR exercise which it is doing now?
The Dalai Lama is a highly respected spiritual figure in the West and his message on non-violence is widely touted to be the answer to world peace and inner happiness. Yet today, even the most devout ahimsa-follower has to admit that violence has finally done for Tibet in one day what non-violence couldn't do in half a century. The world has woken up to Tibet, but only by Tibet abandoning the message of its undisputed spiritual head.
These lingering questions remain to be answered by the Dalai Lama and other devout ahimsa believers, especially Indians and the Indian establishment: Is this violence on the part of the oppressed Tibetan people acceptable as a form of self defence or is violence in all forms a sin? While His Holiness the Dalai Lama has not endorsed the violent actions of his followers in his homeland, he hasn't condemned them either, and it will be interesting to see if he does either as events unfold.
This outbreak of violence in the most non-violent of lands, Tibet, should bring about discussion about the legitimacy and morality of violence in Buddhism and general ethics, in the context of self defence. Most of the world's religions endorse violence as a last resort for the protection of sovereignty and as a self defence. Lord Krishna Himself led the Mahabharat war to uphold dharma. Buddhism on the other hand, along with today's fashionable ideologies, however, in particular Gandhism and various left-wing ideologies, demonise all forms of violence, and Tibet ought to feature prominently in any arguments either justifying or attacking these views.
Would the Buddha today also tell his Tibetan followers to quietly endure their pain with ahimsa and shun violence? We know with near certainty that Mahatma Gandhi would. The venerated father of modern ahimsa had advised the Jews to non-violently resist the Holocaust, and present themselves to the Nazis to be killed until the Nazis finally felt ashamed and repented. One could say the Tibetans have effectively heeded the Gandhian advice, for want of any other alternative, and the results are there for all to see. The Tibetan race is on the path to cultural annihilation. It will not be very long before the Tibetan language is extinct, and the centuries old traditions of the fabled Himalayan nation get condemned to mere footnotes in history books.
The sad truth is that such ideology has weakened another proud people, and we all know that today there is no hope of Tibetan autonomy or religious rights before Tibet as we know it is extinct. No 'force of truth' has the political courage to stand up to China, especially at a time when the US is on the brink of a recession , and the world is looking to China to keep the world economy afloat.
The noble dharma and the middle way is all but defeated yet again.
