Well, the protest march from Dharamsala was officially off after only 12 miles when the Indian police arrested all the demonstrators.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=4442505&page=2
There are apparently 350 other people walking from Northern India who say they will evade police and press on. I wish them hope, admire their courage, and will send them whatever energy is necessary to continue this peaceful protest to bring attention their plight. It seems this inexorable movement towards freedom is gaining momentum despite China's violent crackdown, the unintended complicity of the Indian government, the tacit acceptance of China's 'right' to hold the Olympic Games by the Dalai Lama, and the insipid and lukewarm response to it's citizens being murdered of the Tibetan government, and the Tibetan government-in-exile.
There is obviously wisdom in an exiled governing body distancing themselves from the events in Tibet; not wanting to be associated with the anger and violence perpetrated by some of the protesters there. Both the government and Dalai Lama are stated to have a very moderate (read:ineffective) approach. But where is the balance between the two sides?
If being 'moderate' means to make statements from afar while keeping the status quo, waiting for the international community to act (laughable if it weren't so pathetic), or for China to suddenly realize they are terrorist dictators who murder and torture their own people (will never happen) then please, call me a revolutionary.
Protesting is not meant to be negative or complaining. Pro means 'for', or in favor of. Test means 'to speak' or 'to testify'. So protest means 'to speak for'. I think of it as having the courage to stand and speak the truth, despite the consequences.
Today the Dalai Lama he has called on the international community to step in and investigate the reported deaths of hundreds (not the 10 officially reported by the Chinese Government) of people since the protests began on Monday.
An excerpt from the latest news today by the associated press:
Five groups that say they represent tens of thousands of exiled Tibetans are planning to march from India to Tibet ahead of the Beijing Olympics to protest against China's rule in Tibet.
The groups have said they would not seek approval from the Dalai Lama, who has a more moderate line and says he wants autonomy for Tibet, not outright independence.
On Saturday, the Dalai Lama's office said the spiritual leader had only asked non-governmental organizations to remind the international community, and the Chinese people, about Chinese repression in Tibet and urgency of the situation in the Himalayan region.
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=4412859
Perhaps the Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader can find his way to a 'middle path'? Is it not preferable to take some action to stop the suffering of Tibet, rather than become complicit with the Chinese government in allowing the grave injustice of cultural genocide to be continually perpetrated while ineffectually calling on 'someone' outside of the situation to step in? Why NOT call for a boycott of the Olympic games? Especially if you're already being accused of it? What is gained by non-action in this situation?
I don't wish to judge; I just really don't understand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To oppose something is to maintain it.--Ursula LeGuin
His Holiness the Dalai Lama's approach to China is based on an ancient Eastern perspective, ahimsa. It is based in the notion that--no matter what--one must adhere to a nonviolent approach, with the understanding that eventually awareness wins out which, in turn, leads to transformation. Ahimsa was the central guiding tenet of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., both of whom would have been justified to be more confrontational, yay even to endorse the select few who were taking up violent means of protest. However, they did not.
The other dimension of the His Holiness' stance about the Olympics, I believe, is based in a comprehension of the bigger picture. When the international community goes to China seeds of change will be planted there, and many believe these seeds will become a wedge that--in essence--begins to loosen the tyrannical grip of the old Maoist regime.
In relation to the young Tibetans who have, in fact, taken up violence; it would be a veritable impossibility for the Dalai Lama to show allegiance or support of a method and approach that runs diametrically counter to the spiritual principles of his faith. You would, perhaps, do well to learn a bit more about the Dalai Lama's life and journey by watching the Martin Scorcese film, Kundun. That will give you not only a greater grasp of the historical roots of this issue but may illuminate why the the Dalai Lama takes the approach he does. The last time the Tibetans attempted to rise up against the Chinese it resulted in 200,000 deaths.
Thank you for your comment. And your wisdom.
When I first posted this last month, it was from the perspective of an activist. A very passionate and sometimes rash activist who was also taken to task on this last week by a friend, after the Dalai Lama's conference in Seattle, which she had the honor of attending. She reported that she couldn't hear or even understand most of what was said, but that just being in his presence, even in a giant stadium, was incredible on an energetic level. Truly a man able to lift the vibrational field of thousands just by being present.
For 14 years I was an advocate for people without the ability to speak for themselves. It was through this filter that I saw and could not understand complete inaction (and what I'd thought to be tacit acceptance) in response to the continual repression and murder of Tibetans in China. At the time I'd written that, there had been nothing but a few comments issued from the Tibetan Government in exile.
But I want to be very clear that I was not advocating for violence, or suggesting alignment with anyone committing acts of aggression. I believe the 100 men walking 'home' from Dharamsala to Tibet were peaceful in their intent, and thought that an excellent way to bring attention to the plight of Tibet. My thinking was that if the Dalai Lama had flown to where those men were (still in India) and been in their presence even briefly, it may have shifted the energy of the situation for the world, and brought attention to the plight of Tibet nonviolently, and without aggression.
Though I don't advocate violence, I also don't advocate silence. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were not silent in the face of adversity. Though, of course, both were assassinated. Truth spoken and held implacable in the face of adversity can sometimes enrage those who would wield power in an unconscious way. And I deeply understand wanting to raise the level of consciouness of every soul on this planet.
There is also another aspect here. What does it mean to be the Spiritual Leader of a society of people who are so angry and dispossessed? Does one sacrifice oneself in order to hold the Truth? What can be done other than watching it unfold until something shifts? Eventually it will shift; nothing remains constant. But who will be alive to witness it?
I believe there is a way to engage this without forceful intent. And, there may be other options. One is to allow the Tibetans within China to fully integrate into Chinese society. If there is no resistance, there is no counter-resistance. Hundreds of thousands of Tibetans have been murdered, tortured and silenced by the Chinese Regime, and that shows no signs of stopping.
I believe you are correct about the Olympic Games in China, and the sowing of the seeds of peace. My urge to personally boycott the games is still strong, but I do believe that every nation has the right to play host to the world.
I will also take your suggestion to learn more about the life story of the Dalai Lama. I've spent the last few weeks looking at my own beliefs, sensitivity and how I'd viewed this so angrily such a short time ago.
Blessings and peace to you.
A.
------------------------
You may learn clarity in any random moment of your life,
as soon as you open your inner eyes to what your judgments
of others are saying about you.
--Cherie Carter-Scott
Post a Comment