Download Conflict and Adaptation: Tibetan Perspectives on Nonviolent

Conflict and Adaptation
Tibetan Perspectives on Nonviolent Practice
Lauren Pass
Independent Research Project 2009
Emory University Tibetan Studies Program
Acknowledgements
It was not without the help of a wide range of people that this paper has come together as it is
now. First and foremost I want to thank my research advisor Cynthia Gould for her guidance, advice,
support, and enthusiasm throughout this project. Tawni Tidwell, Courtney Zenner, and Ani-la Kelsang
Wangmo also played important roles, both directly and indirectly, in it's completion. All four of these
women acted invaluably as my teachers, councilors, and friends, throughout this research project and
beyond. I would also like to thank Professor José Cabezón, broadly, for sparking and nourishing my
interest in Tibetan Buddhism, and specifically for his valuable recommendation of many textual
sources. This paper would also not have been possible without the many Tibetans who took time and
energy out of their days to speak to me and answer my many questions. These people include: Geshe
Lobsang Yoenten and Geshe Kunjo Wangdu who provided extensive information on Buddhist
Philosophy, Ngawang Woebar and Jahdor Phuntsok Wangchuk from GuChuSum as well as their
secretaries Sonam and Rinchen for translating, Tenpa Samkhar from the Action Nonviolence Education
Center and his kind and informative staff, Tenzin Dhardon from the Tibetan Women's Association,
Chime Youngdung from the National Democratic Party of Tibet, Tenzin Choeying and Tenzin Choedon
from Students for a Free Tibet, Tenzin Yangdon and Dhondup Dorjee Shokda from the Tibetan Youth
1
Congress, Karma Leksey from the Tibetan Center for Conflict Resolution, Sonam Dagpo from the
Central Tibet Administration, and the unique and priceless voices of Lobsang Wangyal, Tenzin Tsundue
and Lhasang Tsering. These people were more than generous with their time and resources and it was
interacting with them that truly made this project a valuable experience for me. Last but not least, I
extend great thanks to all of the many friends I made during my time in Dharamsala, who sent me
home with innumerable priceless memories; and also to my family, who put up with and even
supported my somewhat vexing decision to go study on the exact opposite side of the planet.
Methods and Goals
Research for this paper was conducted over a three week period of time in May 2009 in
Dharamsala, India, where I interviewed 17 different Tibetans on their views regarding the Tibetan
resistance movement, with specific attention being paid to the use of nonviolence. Given the length of
time I had available, I did not attempt a broad survey of Tibetan opinions, but rather chose to focus on
the individuals involved in running the various NGOs that actively participate in the resistance
movement, as well as some prominent individual activists. The views displayed in this paper are
therefore not a comprehensive collection, but are, I believe, representative of the main opinions held in
the Tibetan community. In addition, I spent approximately three months in India and the U.S. doing
textual research on the subject.
The goal of this project is to explore the thought process of the Tibetan people with regard to
the use of violence in the resistance movement. This paper does not address issues of independence
versus autonomy or consider the effectiveness of the current resistance movement, although both of
these topics were discussed during interviews. Instead, I seek to understand how the Tibetans perceive
their use of nonviolent action, and the relationship between these views and Buddhist and Gandhian
2
philosophies. While a comprehensive overview of these philosophies is impossible within the scope of
this paper, I have summarized what I find to be their main points as relevant to this topic.
Introduction
On March 10th 2008, protests occurring inside Tibet dominated the international news for the
first time in many years. With the 2008 Olympic Games taking place in Beijing, the Tibetan took
advantage of the extra international attention placed on China and chose to make the 49th anniversary
of their Uprising Day a memorable one. Beginning in Lhasa, protests quickly spread all over Tibet, and
continued on throughout the summer. Tensions were high and Tibetans, whose frustration had been
long pent up, were finally coming out into the streets and voicing their anger and discontent. Having
had little to no opportunities to openly act out since the late 1980s, the uprising quickly became the
largest since 1959. The world watched as the events unfolded, and as the protests continued on,
questions were raised regarding whether or not the Tibetans would turn violent. It seemed a shocking
proposal, that those who are world renowned for their nonviolent and peaceful methods of resistance
would suddenly turn so aggressive.
A new level of frustration and anger was coming out that had
previously been hidden, especially among the youth, who had not seen a real uprising in their life
times. And again the question was raised, will these youth abandon the nonviolent legacy of the
Tibetan people and turn towards violence? The western audience was nearly baffled by the idea. How
could Buddhists ever condone the use of violence?
The recognition of the Dalai Lama as a great nonviolent leader, and the emphasis placed on the
nonviolent teachings of Buddhism, has led to an extrapolation of these ideals onto the Tibetan people as
a whole. They are often viewed as peaceful, innocent, and devoted Buddhists, with few other traits
being significantly recognized. The association is certainly understandable, as Tibetans have been
3
upholding a nonviolent struggle, and are devoted to the Dalai Lama. Indeed, Buddhism permeates
nearly every aspect of the Tibetan society, from home life to politics, and it cannot be separated out
from the Tibetan culture. However this is a simplistic view which leaves many other aspects of Tibetan
history and society unaccounted for. Despite the prominence of Buddhism, the Tibetans have not been,
and are not today, an exclusively nonviolent people. A look at Tibet history will reveal rugged tribes,
warrior monks, government corruption, and territorial battles to name just a few happenings.
While the Tibetan resistance today is nonviolent in nature, and has been for roughly the last 30
years, it began as a violent guerrilla resistance. From the early 1950s to the late 1970s, Tibetans all
over Tibet fought valiantly against the Chinese invaders, despite all the odds against them. These were
not radical, irreligious, exceptional people, but everyday Tibetans who considered themselves devoted
Buddhist followers. A large portion of the freedom fighters were monks before they took up arms, and
it was these men who formed the greatest leadership and support in the fighting.
Rather than
abandoning their religious beliefs to fight, these Tibetans saw their actions as ones of faith, fighting as
protectors of the Buddha dharma, willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their Buddhist nation.1
The resistance ultimately was overwhelmed by the Chinese and forced to an end, but their legacy
remains. While the use of violence was never supported by the Tibetan government or the Dalai Lama,
and most Tibetans do not support their methods of resistance, they are still viewed as great national
heroes. However, the emphasis placed on nonviolence today often causes this history to be overlooked,
although their violent reaction is just as much a part of the Tibetan culture as the nonviolent ideals that
have become so well known today.
While protest methods have been by and large nonviolent since the end of the guerrilla
movement, it would be a mistake to assume that Tibetans hold one unified view on the matter. The
1
Mikel Dunham, Buddha's Warriors: The Story of the CIA-Backed Tibetan Freedom Fighters, the
Chinese Invasion, and the Ultimate Fall of Tibet (New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2004) 148-149.
4
complex philosophies upheld by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi promote an
uncompromising view of nonviolence, an ideal that even they acknowledge can only be achieved by a
high spiritual being. When considering the Tibetan resistance movement, it is often assumed that all
the activists involved are dedicated to these ideals with unwavering effort. However, in reality, the
ideals of the nonviolent philosophies are not easily applied to political struggles. The Tibetan people,
left to grapple with such discrepancies, come up with a wide range of responses to the situation. The
ideas surrounding the use of violence, and the thought process behind them vary considerably within
the community. Buddhism is, without a doubt, the origin of nonviolent thought in the Tibetan context,
and it remains prominent. But this does not mean that it is the only influence on Tibetan opinions, or
that all Tibetans are devoted to its principles. There is no single statement that can encompass the
“Tibetan” opinion of violence and nonviolence, as opinions vary widely from individual to individual,
as one would expect of any topic of such complexity. Very few Tibetans fully adhere to or agree with
all the specifics of Buddhist philosophy. At the same time, I have yet to encounter an individual who
remains uninfluenced by Buddhist thought, regardless of the ultimate conclusions they come to.
Tibetan actions in the freedom struggle grow out of Buddhist, Gandhian, and Western philosophies, as
well as the consideration of practical issues. Within the community, one can find devout Buddhists as
well as devout nationalists, and many who diverge from the rigidity of Buddhist doctrine in favor or a
more secular and practical view of nonviolence. The growing secular nature of nonviolent views is
now shifting the Tibetan resistance into a new stage of modern strategic thinking.
Buddhism and Nonviolence
When one plunges into the depths of Buddhist Philosophy, it is easy to become so entrenched in
comprehending teachings on the nature of reality that one loses sight of the more everyday aspects of
5
the tradition. Far from being disconnected from conventional life, the philosophy actually carries with
it strong implications regarding ethics and conduct. For a Buddhist practitioner, following the proper
ethical code is equally vital to one's spiritual path as practices such as meditation, although the latter
often receives more popular attention. Buddhist morals are centered around the idea of non-harming.
The Buddhist code of conduct is designed to rid the individual of their afflictions and selfish tendencies
and focus on benefiting others. Nonviolence is, in many respects, one of the most concrete and
practical applications of the Buddhist philosophical teachings.
However, the exact meaning of
'nonviolent action' within the Buddhist system is more complex than it might initially sound.
The Philosophical Backdrop
Within Buddhist doctrine and literature, there is a vast amount of material that could be cited to
support the importance of nonviolence. Here, I will focus on only some of the main teachings.
One of the most basic and prominent doctrines if the belief in karma and rebirth. Explained
simply, the Buddha taught that our lives are just one of a beginningless string of lives. Upon death, the
individual will be reborn again into another life. Each rebirth is spurred by our karma, or actions, in
previous lives. All rebirths, and experiences in those lives, are determined by a law of cause and effect
in which all actions have a corresponding effect in the future. All positive, negative and neutral actions
will have a positive, negative, or neutral effect, respectively. 2 It follows that in order to experience
happiness and enjoy positive karmic effects in one's future (a goal which all beings strive for) the
individual must perform only positive actions and avoid negative actions. Any violent acts will only
lead to more violence and suffering in the future, never to peace. Only peaceful actions can lead to
peaceful results. The accumulation of positive karma not only leads to a happier life (and future lives)
2 John Powers, Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism (New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1995), 54-55.
6
but is also a necessary precondition for anyone seeking ultimate Enlightenment. Positive karma is vital
for any spiritual development. For this reason, “correct action” is one of the steps in the Noble
Eightfold Path that leads one to Buddha-hood.3 On the other hand, the accumulation of negative karma
leads to undesirable rebirths and suffering. It is therefore advantageous for anyone, regardless of their
goals, to act in a positive and peaceful manner.
Another key Buddhist doctrine is that of interdependence, or dependent origination. According
to dependent origination, everything and everyone is closely connected and interrelated in such a way
that any individual's happiness or suffering is dependent on the happiness or suffering of everyone else.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama provides a simple threefold explanation of this principle. First comes the
principle of cause and effect, in which everything arises in dependence upon “a complex web of
interrelated causes and conditions.”4 For example:
The paper on which these words appear is the product of countless factors – tree, rain,
cloud, logger, trucker, those who perfected the papermaking process, the fuels used to
manufacture and transport the product, the sources of those fuels, and so on, endlessly.
Or,
A few drinks too many by the captain of an oil tanker may cause it to run aground, spoil
many miles of coastline, ruin some local businesses but make others prosper, affect
gasoline prices nationwide, create new jobs for lawyers and Congressional staffers, and
so on, endlessly.5
The second level of dependent origination is a mutual dependence between parts and wholes, one being
unable to exist without the other. And third, “all phenomena can be understood to be dependently
originated because when we analyze them, we find that, ultimately, they lack independent identity.”6
For example, one cannot be a parent without a child (and vice versa). On a more complex level, one
can examine the identity of an object such as a clay pot. As the Dalai Lama explains,
3 Ibid, 59.
4 His Holiness the Dali Lama Tenzin Gyatso, Ancient Wisdom, Modern World: Ethics for the New Millennium (London:
Abacus, 2000), 37.
5 Kenneth Kraft, “Prospects of a Socially Engaged Buddhism,” in Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and
Nonviolence, ed. Kenneth Kraft (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 13.
6 His Holiness the Dali Lama Tenzin Gyatso, Ancient Wisdom, Modern World: Ethics for the New Millennium (London:
Abacus, 2000), 38.
7
What exactly is a clay pot? When we look for something we can describe as its final
identity, we find that the pot's very existence – and by implication that of all other
phenomena – is to some extent provisional and determined by convention. When we
ask whether it's identity is determined by it's shape, its function, it's specific parts … we
find that the term 'pot' is merely a verbal designation. There is no single characteristic
which can be said to identify it. Nor indeed does the totality of its characteristics. We
can imagine pots of different shapes that are no less pots. And because we can only
really speak of its existing in relation to a complex nexus of causes and conditions,
viewed from this perspective, it has no one defining quality. In other words, it does not
exist in and of itself, but rather it is dependently originated.7
When all phenomena are so closely related and interdependent, then harm to one aspect of the system
harms the entire system. In other words, “If each person is not fundamentally separate from other
beings, it follows that the suffering of others is also one's own suffering, that the violence of others is
also one's own violence.”8 Therefore, causing harm to others also results in harm to oneself.
These teachings show that only by engaging in positive actions which benefit others that one
can progress towards their own inner peace and happiness. As Geshe Kunjo Wangdu stated, a monk
and instructor at the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics in Dharamsala, India, one must refrain “from
harming others and oneself because by harming others one harms oneself and by refraining from
harming others one benefits oneself. So it's actually directly directed towards others but indirectly
directed towards self.”9
Although they are perceived as separate, the self and the other are
fundamentally the same. All future experiences are dependent on one's actions towards other beings,
and for this reason Buddhism places great emphasis on the practice of compassion and putting others
before oneself.
How to be Nonviolent in a Buddhist Context
Once one understands the importance of not harming others, and hence the importance of
7 Ibid, 38-39.
8 Kenneth Kraft, “Prospects of a Socially Engaged Buddhism,” in Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and
Nonviolence, ed. Kenneth Kraft (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 13.
9
Kunjo Wangdu, Interview by the Author (His Residence, Dharamsala), 7 May 2009.
8
nonviolent actions, it is necessary to learn what constitutes nonviolent versus violent action.
Physical violence is the most obvious to be avoided, and the act of killing specifically takes a
prominent spot in the Buddhist ethical system. Because every being's life is the most valuable thing to
him, taking that life is considered the most harmful action, and therefore the most negative action. This
is reflected in the fact that killing is listed as the first of the Ten Nonvirtuous Actions, which were
pinpointed by the Buddha as actions which inevitably lead to suffering.10 Refraining from killing is
also the first of the Five Precepts for a Buddhist lay person, as well as one of the main vows for a monk
or nun.11
However, the Buddhist view of violence extends far beyond the physical. Looking again at the
Ten Nonvirtues and the Five Precepts, we see that violent action includes the realm of speech and
thought.
The Ten Nonvirtues consist of the three physical acts of killing, stealing and sexual
misconduct; four verbal acts of lying, divisive speech, harsh words, and senseless gossip; and three
mental acts of covetousness, harmful thoughts, and wrong views.12 A violent act, therefore, can occur
even when no physical harm is induced. Speech and even thought can be violent. For instance, Geshe
Lobsang Yoenten, a monk and instructor at the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics in Dharamsala, points
out that two people fighting is obviously violent, but two people who seem to be friends, but “somehow
try to deceive each other” is also violent.”13 Because one must control one's speech and thoughts as
well as physical acts, Buddhist nonviolence requires a level of restraint and discipline far beyond the
usual notion of nonviolence. When one is faced with an opponent, in addition to acting nonviolently
towards him, the practitioner must also avoid negative speech and feelings towards him. Rather than
despising the enemy, one should still have compassionate and kind thoughts towards him, even when
10
11
12
13
Ibid.
John Powers, Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism (New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1995), 60.
Kunjo Wangdu, Interview by the Author (His Residence, Dharamsala), 7 May 2009.
Lobsang Yoenten, Interview by the Author (IBD Guest House, Dharamsala), 10 May 2009.
9
engaged in opposition.
This idea of violence in Buddhism applies to oneself as well as others. Just as it is negative to
kill or otherwise harm any other living being, it is also negative to harm or kill oneself, and some even
consider it to be a far more negative act.14 This particular aspect of the teachings on violence has
special implications for the Tibetan resistance movement as it considers forms of protest such as hunger
strikes and self-immolation to be violent acts, and against Buddhist teachings.
Rather than a simple subscription to not killing, the idea of nonviolence in Buddhist philosophy
is an all encompassing method to live by that extends into nearly all realms of action. Geshe Lobsang
Yoenten confirms that it is a rigid system in which no case of violence is ever acceptable, allowing for
no exceptions.15 However in addition to the vast amount of doctrine that condemns all forms of
violence and promotes nonviolence, Buddhist literature also contains a plethora of anecdotal evidence
that suggests there are times when violent acts can be acceptable and even beneficial.
Some of the best examples come from the Jataka tales, parables based out of the past lives of
of the Shakyamuni Buddha as he progressed towards his Enlightenment as a bodhisattva. One of the
most prominent tales, which came up frequently during research of this topic, tells of the Buddha-to-be
when he was a sailor on a ship with 500 other people. The merchant captain of the ship was plotting to
plunder the ship, killing all 500 people on board so that he may make off with all the riches. The sailor
bodhisattva learns of the plan, and kills the merchant captain to prevent him from performing this evil
deed.16 In this case, the sailor takes on the negativity of killing one person in order to save the lives of
the other people, as well as to save the captain from obtaining the negativity of killing 500 people.17
Although killing is usually forbidden in Buddhism, as discussed above, in this case it is permissible and
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16
Bhaskar Vyas and Rajni Vyas, Experiments with Non-Violence: The Dalai Lama in Exile from Tibet (New Delhi:
Concept Publishing Company, 2007), 34.
17 Kunjo Wangdu, Interview by the Author (His Residence, Dharamsala), 7 May 2009.
10
even used as a demonstration of the a noble action to take.
Stories like this “recognize that a kind of violence is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater
violence.”18 Geshe Kunjo Wangdu explains this idea in terms of short term and long term benefit.
While ideally one wants their actions to have both short term and long term benefit, “there are also
situations where there is a short term harm and a long term benefit. … [The] mode[s] of conduct the
Buddha set forth are all directed toward a long term benefit.”19 In this example, if the merchant captain
had killed the 500 people, he would have gathered some material goods, but they would have only
lasted for one lifetime, and in his next lives he would experience immense suffering from the great
negativity he accumulated. Therefore, when the sailor “killed that merchant, it was actually an act out
of nonviolence because it benefited that person because even though on the short term basis he lost his
life, if he had not been killed … he would have experienced great suffering after his death. Even
though there was a short term harm at that moment, long term it was an act of nonviolence because it
was an act of benefiting that person. [italics added]”20 He goes on to explain that what is usually
violence can be acceptable in such cases only if a person has a pure motivation. One must not be
looking for any kind of personal gain, or engaging in an act out of any self cherishing, attachment, or
negative feelings.
Ngawang Woebar, another Tibetan monk and president of the GuChuSum organization in
Dharamsala, also noted that the point of this parable is to demonstrate the idea of others before self.
“In this example, the story doesn't tell you about the right to kill somebody to achieve a greater cause,
but more tries to tell you that it is essential to compromise on your benefit so that you can benefit …
18 Kenneth Kraft, “Introduction” in Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and Nonviolence, ed. Kenneth Kraft
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 5.
19 Kunjo Wangdu, Interview by the Author (His Residence, Dharamsala), 7 May 2009.
20 Ibid.
11
others[s]. … So to express that concept the story is made up.”21 The point is not that the bodhisattva
was allowed to kill, but that he was willing to take on the negative karmic effects of the act in order to
save the merchant captain from experiencing even more negative karmic effects. The selflessness of
the act then turns it from a negative act of killing into a positive act of self sacrifice.
Geshe Lobsang Yoenten agrees, saying that “from a Buddhist point of view [this instance of
killing] is not violent. … Nonviolent is very much dependent on motivation.”22 An act that may
usually fit into a category of physical violence is actually nonviolent if one has a pure motivation, or
nonviolent intention. It is important that one be totally directed toward the well being of the other
person, and maintain a pure motivation throughout the preparation for the action, the action itself, and
the conclusion of the action. When the act is completed, one then must “regret the negativity but not
regret the positive of it, and also not have any other negativity arising.” 23 Motivation therefore, is the
key factor in determining whether an act is violent or nonviolent, more so than what the act is itself.
The Dalai Lama provides another example of the importance of motivation in which two monks
sitting by a rushing river witness a drunk man stumble out into the strong current, unaware of the
danger. One of the monks runs after the man and tries to drag him back but the drunk man violently
resists, so the monk knocks him unconscious so that he can take him back to the safety of the shore. In
this story, the monk who sat on the shore and did nothing acted more violently than the monk who used
force to save the drunk man.24 The importance of motivation in an act emphasizes the priority
Buddhism gives to one's mental state. While Buddhist ethics speak of negative actions of the physical,
verbal and mental form, the physical and verbal restraint that one should practice serves only as a
means of working towards a pure mental state. The ultimate focus is on mental control. For this
21
22
23
24
Ngawang Woebar, Interview by the Author (GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala), 11 May 2009.
Lobsang Yoenten, Interview by the Author (IBD Guest House, Dharamsala), 10 May 2009.
Kunjo Wangdu, Interview by the Author (His Residence, Dharamsala), 7 May 2009.
Kenneth Kraft, “Introduction” in Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and Nonviolence, ed. Kenneth Kraft
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 6.
12
reason, a pure motivation on a mental level will outweigh a negative action on a physical level. 25
Considering that killing oneself is as bad as, if not worse than, killing another, the next question
to raise is if violence could be justified in an act of self defense. If a violent action with a pure
motivation becomes nonviolent, then is a regrettable act of self defense also nonviolent? Self defense
after all does not come with a desire to harm others, but a motivation to save oneself. However,
according to Geshe Lobsang Yoenten, this is still not acceptable in the Buddhist view because a person
trying to defend themselves is still acting out of mixed motivations and personal attachments. Rather
than reacting one should have greater patience, and find another way of dealing with the situation.26
Interestingly, while self defense is still considered violent within Buddhism there is an
exception in the case of using violence in the defense of the Buddha dharma. Geshe Yoenten states that
“if it is for preserving the Buddhist teaching, then certain level, certain people can offer their vows [and
commit violent acts], not everybody.”27 He gives the example that if there is an important Buddhist
lama or guru who has exceptional and rare knowledge of Buddha's teachings, then it would be
acceptable for him to act in his own self defense for the sake of preserving and passing on the Buddha's
teachings. This act however is still negative, although it presents another case in which the benefit
would out weigh the cost. According to Geshe Yoenten, this defense of the dharma was the original
purpose of martial arts.28 Certain monks were allowed to act violently for the sake of the preservation
of the religion. However, this motivation is considered pure because it comes from a religious intent to
preserve the dharma for others rather than an attachment to one's current life.
Defense of the dharma has actually been used in Tibetan history to justify violence. One well
known account is of a monk in the year 842, who killed Lang Darma, the king of Tibet who spent his
25
26
27
28
Kunjo Wangdu, Interview by the Author (His Residence, Dharamsala), 7 May 2009.
Lobsang Yoenten, Interview by the Author (IBD Guest House, Dharamsala), 10 May 2009.
Ibid.
Ibid.
13
reign actively persecuting the Buddhists and seeking to wipe out the tradition. The Dalai Lama
explains that “in order to save the Buddha dharma, the monk took action. … The motivation was to
save the Buddha dharma.
That is very clear.”29
Because his motivation was pure, he did not
experience the negative karmic effects that one would normally acquire from killing a human being.
Defense of the dharma was also the reason claimed by the Tibetan guerrillas as they fought back
against the Chinese, although their actions were not endorsed by the Dalai Lama.
Self-sacrifice is another debatable issue when one is defining violence. Buddhism teaches that
harming the self is extremely negative but at the same time places a strong emphasis on the value of
martyrdom and self-sacrifice. The Jataka tales speak of men with so much patience that they allow
themselves to be hacked into many pieces by their angry adversaries rather than react. Another tale
tells of a man with so much compassion that he gives his body over to a hungry tiger to feed her and
her cubs.30 These acts once again depend on short versus long term benefit, and a pure motivation.
While someone who sacrifices themselves in this way loses their current life, the positivity of the
action will bring them greater benefit in future lives. As Geshe Lobsang Yoenten states, “if I sacrifice
my life, then I have to choose which one is more beneficial...and then do that one. … [in the case of the
tiger, the] practitioner's motivation is always thinking about [the]other. If they get any chance [to help],
then [there is] no choice, no thinking, [ it is] effortless. … [the benefit] is more higher than the
negative … [just as] eating medicine can reduce my illness but then [there is] some other side effect …
but we have to accept which one is more positive.”31 In other words, giving up one's life may seem
harmful at first, but can actually be in one's best interest.
While a pure motivation can greatly expand the realm of appropriate action, it is not an easily
29
Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama (New York: Grove Press, 2006), 69-70.
30 Luis O. Gomez, “Nonviolence and the Self in Early Buddhism,” in Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and
Nonviolence, ed. Kenneth Kraft (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 32-33.
31 Lobsang Yoenten, Interview by the Author (IBD Guest House, Dharamsala), 10 May 2009.
14
obtained trait. Developing such a state of mind requires a high level of spiritual accomplishment and is
not something the average person, whether a monk, nun, or layperson, can claim to have. According to
Geshe Lobsang Yoenten, no one who has not achieved bodhicitta, or Great Compassion, can have such
a pure motivation, and even among those who have, still only very few qualify. In his words, one must
be able to “look [at] fruit on the tree, and he can cut the fruit, and second he can look [at] fruit and he
can attach the fruit again to the tree...at this level there is no problem with motivation or violence.”32
Only at this high level can one turn away from the strict nonviolent principles of the Buddhist
teachings. This is a level of attainment that not even His Holiness the Dalai Lama claims to have
reached.33 Due to the difficulty of having a truly pure motivation, violence remains an unacceptable
option for ordinary Tibetans, including for the purposes of the Tibetan resistance movement. Not only
is it unlikely that protesters have this level of realization, but it is also clear that they have their own
benefit in mind. As Geshe Yoenten states, violence or “sacrific[ing] life for the protest is totally
unacceptable … their motivation is for their country, their people, even their family. … That's why His
Holiness said 'I do not agree with the hunger strike.' I appreciate the doing protest, hunger strike is
good, but I do not accept this thing, this [is] totally violence … [and] harm[ful] protest.”34 While some
outwardly violent acts can be deemed nonviolent due to one's pure intentions, the level of difficulty of
having those pure intentions makes violence still extremely negative in the Buddhist system for the
Tibetans seeking effective means in their fight against the Chinese occupation.
Gandhi's Nonviolence and It's Relation to the Tibetan Situation
When discussing the Tibetan resistance movement, it is important to examine Gandhian
32 Ibid.
33 Kenneth Kraft, “Introduction” in Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and Nonviolence, ed. Kenneth Kraft
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 6.
34 Lobsang Yoenten, Interview by the Author (IBD Guest House, Dharamsala), 10 May 2009.
15
philosophy since the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, consistently refer to him as a role model for
their own nonviolent movement. Although the foundation of Tibetan nonviolence is rooted in Buddhist
philosophy, much inspiration is clearly drawn from Gandhi as well. The appropriateness of the
Gandhian model for the Tibetan situation can be argued, however, as Gandhi's ideas originated out of a
very different spiritual system and were applied in a very different political climate. Jane Ardley is one
of many who have pointed out the fundamental differences between the Indian Independence
movement and the Tibetan one. She argues that not only does the specifically Hindu context of the
movement effect the nature of the approach, but also that China has proved to be largely invulnerable
to the noncooperation techniques that were successfully used against the British.35 But these gaps have
not changed the fact that Tibetans have chosen Gandhi as a role model for their struggle. This no doubt
comes from a combination of their exile in India as well as their common use of nonviolent methods.
Gandhi does share many fundamental values with Buddhist philosophy, but his thought also conflicts
with it at certain critical points.
Gandhi and Nonviolent Action
Gandhi developed a unique kind of nonviolent resistance known as Satyagraha, which lies
distinct from other forms in its dedication to nonviolence as a spiritual principle. The term Satyagraha
is usually translated as “adherence to truth” or “truth insistence.” Gandhi believed that “truth alone
triumphs, never untruth,” and it follows that one committed to his beliefs will always prevail. It is
inner conviction regarding the truth which gives the satyagrahi his strength because “it is no longer the
individual who acts but the strength of the truth that acts.” 36 Gandhi's idea of Satyagraha was so firm
35
Jane Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (New York:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 176.
36 R.R. Diwakar, “Satyagraha: A New Way of Life and a New Technique for Social Change,” in Facets of Mahatma
Gandhi Vol. 1: Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep &
Deep Publications, 1996), 93.
16
because it was based on his devotion to Hindu spirituality. He equated the terms “Truth” and “God,”
believing that pure Truth is God, and God is Truth.37 By dedicating oneself to truth and the pursuit of it
through love and nonviolence, Gandhi believed the individual would merge with truth, and hence with
God. He insisted that nonviolence was “profoundly spiritual” as opposed to political, and “must be
based in a living faith in God. … [and] root[ed] … in the principle teachings of all spiritual faiths, great
and small.”38 Nonviolence was a necessary aspect in the pursuit of Truth not only because of it's
connection to God, but also because he acknowledged the relativity of Truth. While one should
tirelessly pursue Truth, one must also realize that “however perfect a man might be, he cannot be sure
that his perception of truth alone is true.
Therefore, it is best that a satyagrahi use love and
nonviolence and self-suffering alone as channels to convey truth to others.”39 This way, “if the cause is
not right then only the resisters will suffer.”40 Because Truth in itself will always prevail if one's cause
is just, there should be no need for violent persuasion.
Having established nonviolence as having inherent value in itself, Gandhi then uniquely
combined it with the techniques and strategies of resistance.41 Michael Emin Salla outlines three main
characteristics of a Satyagraha struggle. These consist of self-suffering, noncooperation, and
consistency between means and ends.42 Self-suffering served the purpose of testing one's Truth, as well
37 Michael Emin Salla, “Satyagraha in Mahatma Gandhi's Political Philosophy,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1:
Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications,
1996), 117.
38 Glenn D. Paige, “Gandhi's Contribution to Global Non-violent Awakening,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1:
Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications,
1996), 387.
39 R.R. Diwakar, “Satyagraha: A New Way of Life and a New Technique for Social Change,” in Facets of Mahatma
Gandhi Vol. 1: Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep &
Deep Publications, 1996), 88.
40 Stuart Nelson, “The Tradition of Non-violence and its Underlying Forces,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1:
Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications,
1996), 58.
41 Gene Sharp, “A Study of the Meaning of Nonviolence, “ in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1: Nonviolence and
Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1996), 25.
42 Michael Emin Salla, “Satyagraha in Mahatma Gandhi's Political Philosophy,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1:
Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications,
17
as one's dedication and courage. If the cause was just, one's willingness to endure suffering would
“melt the heart of the most implacable of opponents,” converting them through their force of
character.43 If not, suffering serves as an admittance of one's wrong.44 Suffering was a key aspect in
one's constant striving towards Truth, with martyrdom being the epitome of this spiritual discipline. It
was due to this belief in the power of self-suffering (as opposed to the suffering of the opponent) that
Gandhi placed such an emphasis on methods of resistance such as hunger strikes.
Noncooperation was also an essential component to a Satyagraha struggle as it served to reform
the government from within.
Gandhi held that no form of government could exist without the
cooperation of the people, whether willing or forced. By withdrawing cooperation (and being willing to
endure any negative consequences) the people are capable of halting all functions of a government. 45 It
was in accordance with this principle that Gandhi encouraged strikes, boycotts, and acts of civil
disobedience throughout the Indian independence movement, including such famous and successful
campaigns as the Dandi salt march, and the boycott of foreign clothe.
Lastly, the consistency between ends and means connects Gandhi's practical tactics to his
spiritual principles. As Gandhi stated, “if one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.
Nonviolence is the means, the end for every nation is complete independence.” 46 However, the 'end
result' in a Satyagraha should conceptually be only the beginning of a struggle. As one seeks a greater
transformation of oneself and ones relationships.
This kind of transformation not only solves
immediate problems, but fundamentally alters the attitudes of the system, and fulfills the needs of all
1996), 120-121.
43 Ibid, 120.
44
Jane Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (New York:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 71.
45 Michael Emin Salla, “Satyagraha in Mahatma Gandhi's Political Philosophy,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1:
Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications,
1996),121.
46 Ibid, 120-121.
18
parties involved.47 In Satyagraha, there is no victory or defeat, only the pursuit of Truth. Rather than
assuming the opponent is wrong and seeking to defeat them, the satyagrahi seeks to interact
constructively with the opponent in a way which develops and “produces a new movement which may
change the direction or even content of the force.”48 Rather than being used to obtain a specific goal,
Satyagraha should be undertaken because of its' own inherent value, because “what is good and
worthwhile should be pursued because it is good and worthwhile to pursue and not because it is likely
to yield a particular end.”49 The end for the satyagrahi is Truth, and the consistent means is
nonviolence and love. It follows that not only should ones means be pure, but ones mindset also.
Here, motivation plays a key role, as Gandhi stated that Satyagraha should not be undertaken with any
personal, or group, interest in mind, and should be free of anger and negative mental states.50 In this
way, Gandhi's nonviolence was much more a religious way of life than a tactic or strategy. It therefore
requires far greater strength and commitment than other more conventional forms of nonviolent
resistance.
Gandhi made a point that Satyagraha was not a method of the weak, but of the strong. It should
not be engaged because one is weaker than their opponent and has no other options. As Stuart Nelson
states, Satyagraha was not meant as “an expedient to be used when no other instrument is available and
one is otherwise powerless.” It should be used only by those who “are able to strike back but will
not.”51 It requires a great amount of strength, courage and dedication, greater even than what one
would need in a violent struggle. In fact, Gandhi believed that physical courage must be obtained
47 Joan V. Bondurant, “Satyagraha Versus Duragraha,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1: Nonviolence and Satyagraha,
ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1996), 96.
48 Ibid, 96.
49
Bhaskar Vyas and Rajni Vyas, Experiments with Non-Violence: The Dalai Lama in Exile from Tibet (New Delhi:
Concept Publishing Company, 2007), 129.
50 S.P. Verma, “Satyagraha and Democracy,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1: Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed.
Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1996), 145.
51 Stuart Nelson, “The Tradition of Non-violence and its Underlying Forces,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1:
Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications,
1996), 61.
19
before spiritual courage.52 While Gandhi would never condone violent action, and felt strong enough
himself to resist evil nonviolently, he advised that if one could not resist nonviolently, violent resistance
was preferable to shamefully fleeing from danger. It would be better to fight violently against evil
than to remain passive within it.53 This would ensure that one would avoid a passive nonviolence of
the weak.
While Gandhi's ideals may seem lofty and nearly unachievable, Gandhi was fully aware of this
difficulty. He recognized that there is, and has to be, a large gap between the ideal and the practice of a
philosophy, and did not claim his own Satyagraha to live up to his ideals.54 If an ideal is realized, then
it is no longer an ideal. This gap is actually essential because of the room it creates for constant
striving. Perfect nonviolence can only be practiced by God. 55 But rather than lower one's ideal
because it is unreachable, one should be aware of one's imperfections, and work tirelessly to improve
upon them.56 When one is engaged in a Satyagraha, the distance between the ideal and the practical is
the critical factor that determines the actions and strategies one should take.57
Compatibility of Buddhist and Gandhian Views
Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence coincides with the Buddhist philosophy of nonviolence on
many key points, although their reasoning may differ, making their fusion a relatively easy and
52 Hugh Tinker, “Nonviolence as a Political Strategy: Gandhi and Western Thinkers,” in n Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol.
1: Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep
Publications, 1996), 337.
53 B.S. Sharma, “Civil Disobedience and Violence in Indian Politics,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1: Nonviolence
and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1996), 218.
54 Michael Emin Salla, “Satyagraha in Mahatma Gandhi's Political Philosophy,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1:
Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications,
1996), 119.
55 B.S. Sharma, “Civil Disobedience and Violence in Indian Politics,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1: Nonviolence
and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1996), 217.
56 Ibid, 218.
57 J.D. Sethi, “Twelve Point Gandhian Agenda for the Peace Movements,” in Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1:
Nonviolence and Satyagraha, ed. Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy (New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications,
1996), 361.
20
understandable process. Both methods serve as a way of life in itself, and not just a means to an end
goal. They view nonviolence as a spiritual conviction which should be accompanied not by a sense of
weakness, but by strength, dedication and a pure motivation. Emphasis is placed on positive feelings
of love and compassion for one's opponent, and the importance of leaving behind selfish thought and
motives. Nonviolence in both systems also take into account verbal and mental actions in addition to
action, possibly even considering them more important. One should strive to control all three forms of
action through inner development. The focus is placed on transformation and growth rather than a
particular political end, seeking a development among all parties which will lead to a mutually
beneficial solution.
The main sticking point between the two ideologies lies in the notion of self suffering. While
Gandhi emphasizes it as essential to a resistance, Buddhism teaches that self harm is just as violent as
harming the opponent. Although so much of the rest of their tenets fall nicely into parallel lines, this
difference creates inconsistencies for a Buddhist trying to apply Gandhian resistance methods.
The Practical Aspect of Nonviolence in the Tibetan Resistance Movement
In addition to the ideological and ethical motives that lie behind the Tibetan use of nonviolent
action, there is also an extremely practical aspect that does not go unnoticed. The relative size and
might of the Chinese government and the Chinese military, as well as their clout on the world stage, is
enough to convince anyone that a violent uprising by the Tibetans would not just be unsuccessful, but
mercilessly crushed. The Tibetans consist of only 6 million people against 1.2 billion Chinese who
control one of the world's largest militaries. As Sonam N. Dagpo, Secretary of International Relations
at the Central Tibet Administration (CTA), phrases it, “it's like we are a drop in the ocean.” 58 This is a
58 Sonam N. Dagpo, Interview by the Author (CTA Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
21
fact that the Tibetans are painfully aware of, and it does influence their decision to adhere to nonviolent
methods.
Their small numbers, as well as their lack of military, financial, and global political power have
convinced many Tibetans that nonviolence, though it is the right path to take, is also the only path they
have as an option. As Tenzin Dhardon stated, Research and Media Officer of the Tibetan Women's
Association (TWA), “considering our limitations, considering our resources, considering the scope of a
violent method, I think we will be content to stick to a nonviolent method because there's no way out,
there's no choice.”59 Not only this, using nonviolence gives the Tibetans an advantage. In terms of the
lack of Tibetan resources, Tenpa Samkhar, Executive Director of the Action Nonviolence Education
Center (ANEC), points out that nonviolence is a weapon available to everybody, regardless of age,
financial status, or training. As he states, “we don't have to train anybody to do a candle light vigil.”60
Nonviolence, then, provides a plausible method of resistance, allowing Tibetans to oppose the Chinese
occupation without being doomed to failure.
According to Professor Gene Sharp, a political theorist and well known expert on nonviolent
resistance who is influential among the Tibetan community, “by placing confidence in violent means,
one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority.” 61
By using nonviolent methods instead, the nature of the battle is shifted to a realm where the oppressed
have the upper hand against even mammoth military power. For this reason “even limited violence
during a political defiance campaign will be counter productive” as it gives the dictators an excuse to
respond with force.62 This can be observed during the protests of 2008, which remained nonviolent,
and powerful, until a stone throwing incident caused the
Chinese to react violently against the
59
Tenzin Dhardon, Interview by the Author (TWA Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
60 Tenpa C. Samkhar, Interview by the Author (ANEC Office, Dharamsala), 19 May 2009.
61 Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, Third U.S.
Edition (Boston: The Albert Einstein Institution, 2008), 4.
62 Ibid, 32.
22
Tibetans. Had this incident not occurred, the protests could have sustained for a much longer period of
time because the Chinese would not have had an excuse to clamp down so fiercely. According to
Sharp, “the stark brutality of the regime against the clearly nonviolent actionists politically rebounds
against the dictators' position, causing dissension in their own ranks as well as fomenting support for
the resisters among the general population, the regime's usual supporters, and third parties.” 63 Apart
from the strength and sustainability created by nonviolent resistance methods, the advantage of
gathering third party support is often viewed as a crucial aspect of the Tibetan struggle. Dhondup
Dorjee Shokda, Vice President of the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), observes that it is international
opinion that makes nonviolent methods currently advantageous for the Tibetans. Had the Tibetans used
violence in their protests in 2008 around the time of the Beijing Olympics, it would have “backfired,”
and given the Chinese more reasons to use force. He also notes that any organization in exile dedicated
to a violent resistance would be quickly shut down by the Indian government.64 A violent resistance is
therefore widely viewed as impractical and damaging to the Tibetan cause. Although this line of
reasoning is valid, it create what Gandhi would consider nonviolence of the weak. The motivation here
comes not out of concern for the opposition, but out of concern for one's own survival.
Tibetan Perspectives
Commitment to Ideology
When examining Tibetan views on nonviolence, it becomes quite clear from the start that they
place a great value on the ideology of the Buddhist tradition, as well as that of other leaders such as
Mahatma Gandhi. Buddhist philosophy was a prominent backdrop in nearly all of the conversations I
had with Tibetans about their resistance movement. Many remain very faithful to the philosophy
63 Ibid, 32-33.
64 Dhondup Dorjee Shokda, Interview by the Author (TYC Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
23
espoused by the Buddhist religion, and are greatly influenced by it when they form their opinions about
proper political action.
The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in Exile have of course been the leaders in the
commitment to Buddhist nonviolence. His Holiness has preached nothing but nonviolent resistance
towards the Chinese since his ascent into political leadership. As he stated in the Five Point Peace Plan
presented in 1987, “Traditionally, Tibetans are a peace loving and nonviolent people. Since Buddhism
was introduced to Tibet over one thousand years ago Tibetan have practiced nonviolence with respect
to all forms of life. This attitude has also been extended to our country's international relations.”65 It is
due to the political and spiritual leadership of the Dalai Lama, as well as the religious nature of the
Tibetan political system, that the Tibetan Government in Exile has remained so steadfast to Buddhist
beliefs. According to Sonam Dagpo, Secretary of International Relations at the CTA, “right from the
beginning it has been the policy of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government to resolve the Tibetan
issue through nonviolence and through dialogue.66 The CTA ascribes to the type of nonviolence
defined in Buddhist philosophy in which restraint must be placed on one's actions, speech and thought.
In line with this, the main methods the CTA has pursued consist of seeking negotiations, and lobbying
international support to help pressure the Chinese government into negotiations.67 Dagpo emphasized
that even if a resolution could be reached through a violent method, it would not be preferable because
“violent methods of resolving issues is not viable for [a] lasting solution” and will only create more
animosity between parties.68 The government rather seeks what Gandhi would consider a strong
nonviolence, taken up out of principle rather than helplessness.
The Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government in Exile, Professor Samdhong Rinpoche, is
65 The Middle Way Approach: A Framework for Resolving the Issue of Tibet (Dharamsala: Department of
Information and International Relations, CTA, 2006), 10.
66 Sonam N. Dagpo, Interview by the Author (CTA Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
67 Sonam N. Dagpo, Interview by the Author (CTA Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
68 Sonam N. Dagpo, Interview by the Author (CTA Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
24
another prominent figure who is well known for his dedication to Buddhist nonviolence principles, as
well as his interest in Gandhian philosophy. He has also stated that the Tibet issue can only be solved
through mutual consent and negotiations, and that freedom will only come from nonviolent action.69 In
his view, nonviolence has been a defining Tibetan characteristic. While acknowledging that a violent
resistance against the Chinese did last until the mid 1970s, Rinpoche makes a point that under the 14th
Dalai Lama, “there was no organized or no state-approved violent action. That is a fact of our
history.”70 The violence that occurred, including during the 1959 uprising, was “spontaneous” and not
state ordered. He believes that, had violence continued, the Tibetans would have been wiped out,
whereas the use of nonviolence has allowed the resistance to sustain for the last 50 years.71
However, also seeing the relative unsuccessfulness of the resistance thus far, Rinpoche has
called for a Tibetan Satyagraha to be undertaken. He believes “all the Tibetan people must, with united
hearts and minds, courageously engage in a Satyagraha movement as an effective means to achieve our
own truth, for Truth is always victorious and Truth is on our side.”72 Rinpoche's idea of Satyagraha is
mostly “faithful to that proposed by Gandhi: it is a nonviolent demonstration of truth, love and
compassion, and would include civil disobedience, non-cooperation, and boycotts” with the main goals
being “self-purification, freedom from illegal Chinese occupation, and the fulfillment of what he sees
as the universal responsibility of the Tibetan people.”73 To Rinpoche, the Tibetan commitment to Truth
69 Samdhong Rinpoche, “Third World Parliamentarians Convention on Tibet,” in Selected Writings and Speeches: A
Collection of Selected Writings and Speeches on Buddhism and Tibetan Culture by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche,
Chhosphel, Samten, Khenpo Sonam Gyatso, Tsering Dakpa, Penpa Dorjee, Jampa Samten, and
Lobsang Norbu Shastri, ed. (Varanasi: Central nstitute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1999), 214.
70 Donovan Roebert, ed. Samdhong Rinpoche, Uncompromising Truth for a Compromised World:
Tibetan Buddhism and Today's World (Bloomington: World Wisdom Inc, 2006), 156 .
71 Ibid, 156.
72 Samdhong Rinpoche, “Satyagraha: Truth-Insistence,” in Selected Writings and Speeches: A Collection of Selected
Writings and Speeches on Buddhism and Tibetan Culture by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, Chhosphel, Samten, Khenpo
Sonam Gyatso, Tsering Dakpa, Penpa Dorjee, Jampa Samten, and Lobsang Norbu Shastri, ed. (Varanasi: Central nstitute
of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1999), 299.
73
Jane Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (New York:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 110.
25
already exists in their insistence on rightness of their cause. He calls for a few individuals to take on
the responsibility of a full Satyagraha in order to work towards this goal. He does admit, however, that
a Tibetan Satyagraha can not exactly fit into the Gandhian model. Viewing Satyagraha through a
Buddhist lens, Rinpoche of course differs from Gandhi on the idea of self suffering, saying that
“although one will certainly have to endure stoically such hardships as enforced starvation, one must
not deliberately sacrifice one's life through fasting, self-immolation, and so on.”74 While Tibetans
already maintain an adherence to their national Truth, difficulty for them lies in
maintaining a
compassionate mind towards the opposition. As Rinpoche states, “We are not able to develop a real
Satyagraha among ourselves because of distrust and fear and frustration.”75 There has yet to be an
active response to Rinpoche's suggestion from the Tibetan community, but he is not alone in his
commitment to a strong nonviolent struggle.
Apart from the government, activists often referred to their Buddhist faith and nonviolent
culture as the basis of their actions. It is often described as the very root and core of their culture, and
therefore something that is hard to abandon. Ngawang Woebar, a Buddhist monk and President of
GuChuSum, an organization dedicated to the welfare of former Tibetan political prisoners, spoke in
commonly used language when he commented that “being Buddhist, it's in the nature of Tibetans not to
be just violent.”76 Statements like these permeate all discussion of nonviolence in the Tibetan context.
Tenzin Dhardon of the Tibetan Women's Association agrees that “by nature the Tibetans are all
Buddhist, the religion we follow is Buddhism, which preaches and which vouches for nonviolence, so
74 Samdhong Rinpoche, “Satyagraha: Truth-Insistence,” in Selected Writings and Speeches: A Collection of Selected
Writings and Speeches on Buddhism and Tibetan Culture by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, Chhosphel, Samten, Khenpo
Sonam Gyatso, Tsering Dakpa, Penpa Dorjee, Jampa Samten, and Lobsang Norbu Shastri, ed. (Varanasi: Central nstitute
of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1999), 309.
75 Samdhong Rinpoche, “Satyagraha: Truth-Insistence,” in Selected Writings and Speeches: A Collection of Selected
Writings and Speeches on Buddhism and Tibetan Culture by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, Chhosphel, Samten, Khenpo
Sonam Gyatso, Tsering Dakpa, Penpa Dorjee, Jampa Samten, and Lobsang Norbu Shastri, ed. (Varanasi: Central nstitute
of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1999), 317.
76 Ngawang Woebar, Interview by the Author (GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala), 11 May 2009.
26
there's no way for people to deviate from that.”77 Tenpa Samkhar, Executive Director of the Action
Nonviolent Education Center, the name of which is self-explanatory, sees that “99% of the Tibetans are
Buddhist, and for all Buddhists, nonviolence is the very basis of the teachings of the Buddha.”78 The
well known Tibetan writer and activist Tenzin Tsundue phrased it most eloquently when he said that
nonviolence for Tibetans is a “basic principle of life. That's how we are, that's how we live. So
nonviolence is there in our ways of dressing, our ways of thinking, food, culture, everywhere. It
emanates from us.”79 This listing is only a few of such statements that were made during my
interviews.
Not only do these individuals find the Buddhist teachings as foundational in their lives as
Tibetans, but in many ways, they also do not seem to deviate from the full extent of the Buddhist
nonviolent principles, despite how idealistic they may seem. Ngawang Woebar expresses that he
“cannot deny that some individuals might have the desire to use violent means. But even then, I feel
like at the end, they wouldn't actually take action in that direction.” 80 He gives the example that
although Tibetans in the 2008 protests managed to snatch weapons away from the Chinese forces, they
broke them or threw them rather than turned them back against the Chinese. He does not see self
defense as justifiable within his principles, saying that a true nonviolent practitioner will not fight back
even when he is threatened, always placing others before himself.81 Lobsang Wangyal, an independent
activist and photo journalist responsible for such events as the 2008 Tibetan Olympics in Dharamsala,
the Miss Tibet Pageant, and the Tibetan Music Awards, also considers himself deeply influenced by the
Buddhist teachings. In line with the Buddhist and Gandhian philosophy, he holds that violence “can be
both physical and psychological” and so Tibetans must be careful with the words and gestures they use
77
78
79
80
81
Tenzin Dhardon, Interview by the Author (TWA Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
Tenpa C. Samkhar, Interview by the Author (ANEC Office, Dharamsala), 19 May 2009.
Tenzin Tsundue, Interview by the Author (His Residence, Dharamsala), 9 May 2009.
Ngawang Woebar, Interview by the Author (GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala), 11 May 2009.
Ngawang Woebar, Interview by the Author (GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala), 14 May 2009.
27
in their protests.82 Ngawang Wobar explains that “even though at the face of it it might seem as that the
Buddhist principles are very unlikely to be achievable in this modern times … [but] if you actually try
to work through it, try to follow those principles they are not actually that difficult.”83 While ideas such
as not hating one's enemy seem unreasonable at first, it is an achievable goal, for the Buddha's
teachings were not meant for exceptional individuals, but for the ordinary man.
With this in mind, many think that it is the nonviolent means that are the most important aspect
of the struggle. Tenzin Tsundue is perhaps one of the strongest adherents to this view, and maintains
that a nonviolent way of life is itself the goal of the struggle. Just as discussed in the idea of
Satyagraha, nonviolent means is an end in itself, has a value unto itself, and is not just a tool towards a
specific goal but rather a greater transformation. In his words,
The process is the end. In the process, if you can maintain your peace of mind, in the process
if you can create that peace and nonviolence within you, within your community and if
possible in your adversary, that is success. The success of the Tibetan nonviolent freedom
struggle is what we have seen in the past 50 years. It does not begin from the time of Chinese
leaving Tibet. No. The success is already here, and the results already showing that instead of
contributing to the already violent world, we have maintained nonviolence.84
With statements like this, it seems obvious that the Buddhist and Gandhian philosophies
espoused by the Tibetan activists do indeed form a foundational part of their thought process, and
greatly influence their beliefs and actions. It also becomes understandable, with these preliminary
comments, why it is so often assumed that all Tibetans are unwavering practitioners of nonviolent life.
However, from the history that has already been discussed, it is clear that nonviolence has not always
been so ingrained into Tibetans. In fact, quite the opposite is true. It is only in the past 30 years or so
that the Tibetan people (with the exception of the Dalai Lama) have been so committed to these
nonviolent ideals.
While today certain individuals maintain that “we Tibetans” are exclusively
82 Lobsang Wangyal, Interview by the Author (His Office, Dharamsala), 11 May 2009.
83 Ngawang Woebar, Interview by the Author (GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala), 11 May 2009.
84 Tenzin Tsundue, Interview by the Author (His Residence, Dharamsala), 9 May 2009.
28
Buddhist and nonviolent, this can not be taken as a representation of all Tibetan opinions. The views
expressed above, though genuine and not taken out of context, only make up a fraction of the opinions
surrounding nonviolence in the Tibetan community, and are not even a full representation of the views
of each individual mentioned here.
Towards a Secular Nonviolence
While many Tibetans remain devoted to the principle of nonviolence, whether it be for religious
reasons or otherwise, a large portion of them find the extensive and rigid dictations of Buddhist
philosophy too broad and too demanding for an ordinary person to uphold. Especially when applied to
the political aims of the resistance movement, the philosophy is seen as too idealistic and restraining.
While the benefits of avoiding physical violence are still recognized, ideas such as restraining speech
and thought, and having love and compassion for the opponent are left behind. Instead many opt for a
more basic definition of violence, and a more secular application of nonviolent action.
To Tenpa Samkhar, though the Buddhist philosophy is a very good ideal to uphold, it's
profundity renders it difficult to practice for the average individual. The restraint required seems to be
only possible by such figures as the Dalai Lama. In his view,
An ordinary human being like me, although I am a Buddhist, really cannot implement
the Buddhist concept of nonviolence thoroughly, although I very much would like to.
Because, in the Buddhist concept … you have to be nonviolent through speech, through
action, and through thought. … I may be able to resort to nonviolent action, that is very
possible … and I may also be able to resort to nonviolence in speech … but how can I
say that even my thoughts are nonviolent? This is very difficult. As human beings we
are prone to anger, and hatred, and things like that.85
Chime Youngdung, President of the National Democratic Party of Tibet( NDPT) which was
formed to promote a democratic party system in the Tibetan government, shares this view believing
that the depth of the Buddhist philosophy is too large of a commitment for ordinary human beings.
85 Tenpa C. Samkhar, Interview by the Author (ANEC Office, Dharamsala), 19 May 2009.
29
While some may have the time and ability to dedicate themselves to such practices, “general people”
are too occupied with work and family commitments.86 While still valuing nonviolent action, he thinks
that in the resistance movement, is does not necessarily need to take on a religious form. Like
Samkhar, Youngdung believes it is not practical to ask everyone to restrain their speech and thoughts as
well as physical actions. He states that “we are human beings, so sometimes we have inside angerness, we feel anger-ness … we feel we cannot control at that time. … It's very, very difficult. So
according to Buddhist philosophy, they say you have to change yourself, you have to control that time
when you are angry.”87 However, this level of control can not be expected in political activity. While
one can maintain more simple Buddhist practices, the deep philosophy cannot be applied “because
[NDPT] is a political party and we have many different types of activities.” For instance, if Youngdung
were to meet with Chinese policy makers, he feels he would not be able to, and should not be expected
to, control his negative thought and speech.88 For these reasons, he sees the nonviolent methods of
Gene Sharp, who teaches only restraint from physical violence, to be much more applicable to political
struggles.
Tenzin Dhardon of the TWA also holds similar views. The TWA is a social and political
organization dedicated to the empowerment of Tibetan women, and has been dedicated to nonviolent
methods since it's inception. It is considered especially important to them because as an organization
solely run by women, they believe they have a responsibility to uphold the highest morals of their
society. They also consider themselves devoted to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, placing utmost
importance in his guidance as well as the Buddhist teachings. However, Dhardon expressed the same
reservations about the full extent of Buddhist nonviolence. She states that
86 Chime Youngdung, Interview by the Author (NDPT Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
87 Chime Youngdung, Interview by the Author (NDPT Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
88 Chime Youngdung, Interview by the Author (NDPT Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
30
Because we are by nature Buddhist doesn't necessarily mean you have to be very rigid
and keep tolerating everything, keep tolerating all the injustices, it's not that. … There
are a few basic teachings, basic principles that Buddhism talks about, like about being
able to tolerate your enemies actions, and not being reactive … and also being able to
think about humanity at large and not about self. … I think the Tibetan freedom struggle
will not necessarily follow the strict and rigid rules of Buddhism but there are a lot of
practical guidelines that Buddhism has to offer.89
However, the more lofty goals, such as loving ones enemy and not harboring any ill feelings, do not fall
into this practical category. In her view, “It sounds very nice, very nice to listen to … [but] I think
there is a limit to human patience.”90 To her, violence consists of only physical violence, a more broad
definition is not realistic for a political movement.
Tenzin Choeying, the India National Director of Students of a Free Tibet (SFT), an international
NGO whose main focus is applying active nonviolence and empowering youth, also confronts the same
problem in the application of Buddhist philosophy. While he sees the value in ideas such as conquering
one's enemies through love, forgiveness, and right action, he has not witnessed any positive changes
come about as a result of such practices. Rather than viewing nonviolent action through a solely
religious lens, SFT seeks a more secular view of nonviolence that allows for more active strategies.
According to Choeying,
For us, the idea of nonviolence has more to do with how Gandhi applied it, how Martin
Luther [King] applied it, trying to be more active, not just remaining passive. … for us
[nonviolence] is a weapon. … What Martin Luther [King] described as nonviolence I
tend to agree with … that nonviolence is … to bring to the surface the heated tension so
that you adversary is forced to come to the negotiating table. … For me what is
important is how you can get back what you want, how nonviolence can be applied,
taking what rightly belongs to us. Philosophy is nice … how to conquer enemies by
love and all these things, but then when you apply it, it's really tough. More than that,
first and foremost we need to think that we are human beings. We need to be more
direct and more honest.91
For Choeying nonviolence is not an end in itself. It is a tool to be applied for a purpose. And in the
89 Tenzin Dhardon, Interview by the Author (TWA Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
90 Tenzin Dhardon, Interview by the Author (TWA Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
91 Tenzin Choeying, Interview by the Author (SFT Office, Dharamsala), 8 May 2009.
31
case of the Tibetan resistance, the specifics of Buddhist philosophy are not the most effective tool to be
implemented.
Lobsang Wangyal takes this position also, seeing nonviolence as not a grand goal in itself, but
as a tool. “The goal is not nonviolence, the goal is free Tibet” he says. It is only after Tibet is free that
one can go on to seek some greater transformation of society. Quite contrary to the opinions expressed
by activists like Tenzin Tsundue (as conveyed previously), Wangyal does not believe Buddhism teaches
nonviolence to be an end in itself. He states, “There's no such thing as Buddhism is nonviolence, no.
Whoever is trying to draw such an opinion or make such a thing, I don't understand. Okay, if the goal
is nonviolence, Tibetan movement is nonviolent! So we have achieved what we want! Finish! Why
should we shout?”92 But the struggle is not finished, and even those who profess a kind of achievement
in having a nonviolent movement in itself, do indeed continue to shout for their political goal.
Tenzin Choedon, the SFT Program Coordinator, is another who finds the Buddhist principles to
be too idealistic for the human nature of the Tibetan struggle. While the ideals of course sound good
when discussed, she does not feel that average people can be transformed so easily. The Tibetan
struggle is, after all, about more than principles, “it's a matter of survival. And when you talk about
survival, everyone is just a human being.”93 The extent of the requirements for Buddhist nonviolence
also restrict the use of some primary nonviolent techniques such as the hunger strike, due to the harm it
causes to oneself. By narrowing down the methods available to protesters, Choedon believes that
Buddhist philosophy makes the resistance too passive. “When you think of the struggle,” she says,
“just leave that Buddhist principle behind and think of ways you can do active nonviolence, build a
movement that is active but also nonviolent.”94
These restrictions are felt by the Tibetan Youth Congress also, an organization founded in the
92 Lobsang Wangyal, Interview by the Author (His Office, Dharamsala), 11 May 2009.
93 Tenzin Choedon, Interview by the Author (SFT Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
94 Tenzin Choedon, Interview by the Author (SFT Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
32
1970s to alleviate social issues of Tibetans in exile as well as continue the fight for independence
among the youth. The hunger strike is one of the main methods of protest that TYC has used, and
gained especial attention in 1998 when they staged a hunger strike unto death in Delhi, demanding the
U.N. to take action in the Tibetan situation. While the TYC sited Gandhi as evidence that the hunger
strike is a legitimate nonviolent method, the act was not endorsed by the Tibetan Government or the
Dalai Lama because of its classification as “voluntary self-torture.”95 It is due to such religious
responses to their actions that the TYC, as well as others, feel that religion should be kept separate from
political initiatives. Tseten Norbu, the president of the TYC in 1998 stated that “the fact really is that
we are fighting for our political rights. This is not a religious act. Hence, though the religious
interpretation may be different, on the political plane we feel that we are absolutely right.”96 The
current Vice President of the TYC, Dhondup Dorjee Shokda, maintains this view, believing that
activists cannot completely subscribe to Buddhist views and that such ideas must be kept separate from
the political movement.97
Although most of these individuals continue their faith in nonviolence as a tool, they feel the
need to separate the political movement from the full restrictions of Buddhist and Gandhian
philosophy. This view is even shared by Ngawang Woebar, who (as seen above) is one of the most
staunch adherents to the Buddhist system. In his words,
If you ask me, as a monk, since I am a Buddhist practitioner, I would say it [self
harm for protest in the form of hunger strikes or self-immolation] is wrong. But if you
think of it politically, then I think it is correct, and I think particularly in these modern
times it becomes one of the methods of peaceful … nonviolence rather than violence. If
you go deep into Buddhism them definitely it is against Buddhism. But then in this
freedom struggle we can not actually mix up both Buddhism and politics together, we
95
Jane Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (New York:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 47-48.
96
Jane Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (New York:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 64.
97 Dhondup Dorjee Shokda, Interview by the Author (TYC Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
33
have to take a very balanced approach. Because the Tibetan freedom struggle concerns
not just Buddhists and monks, but ordinary Tibetans and some people might not even be
Buddhist also, so it's about people.98
And the people of the resistance feel the need to diverge away from strict philosophy into more
worldly, political methods. While these Tibetans maintain respect for the ideal, it is simply not feasible
to apply to a freedom struggle. The Dalai Lama's stance is commendable, but less than effective. As
Tenzin Dorjee, Deputy Director of SFT, puts it, “We feel the bodhisattva way of life … is a great policy
to live your life by … but when it comes to issues of sovereignty, issues involving nations, it's not very
practical, and therefore we think that bodhisattva is not a good foreign policy.”99
As Tibetans reconcile their devotion to the Buddhist religion and their need for a realistic
approach to the Chinese occupation, Buddhist philosophy seems to slip further and further away from
an all encompassing way of life, instead being placed into a specific category that does not overlap with
other issues.
While the separation of Buddhist philosophy from worldly challenges may be
contradictory to the very point of Buddhism, the distinction reflects how many Tibetans view their
faith. As we have already seen, Tibetans consistently refer to how Buddhism and Buddhist ideas are
such a vital and foundational part of their culture, suggesting that for many, Buddhism could be
considered more important because of the cultural and national identity it represents rather an for it's
specific ideology and teachings. As Tenzin Choeying stated “we are Tibetan and the culture that we
Tibetans feel proud of is about the Buddhist culture [italics added].”100 As Chime Youngdung points
out, one of the reasons that Tibetans cannot practice the stronger kinds of Buddhist principles is
because “we are Buddhist from family, from generation to generation we are Buddhist [italics
added].”101 It is a tradition passed down through families who may not even be familiar with the extent
98 Ngawang Woebar, Interview by the Author (GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala), 11 May 2009.
99 Tenzin Dorjee, Group Interview with Emory Students (Chinar Lodge, Dharamsala), 9 March 2009.
100
Tenzin Choeying, Interview by the Author (SFT Office, Dharamsala), 8 May 2009.
101
Chime Youngdung, Interview by the Author (NDPT Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
34
of Buddhist philosophy, but who value it as a vital aspect of their culture. This is exemplified in the
attitude of the Tibetan Women's Association towards their religious versus political duties. While the
TWA partakes in religious activities such as observing auspicious days, organizing prayer gatherings,
and giving offerings, their political side is much less influenced by Buddhism. Tenzin Dhardon
explains that with respect to political activities,
We really don't strictly follow Buddhism. One of our main activities is cultural
preservation which includes Buddhism as well because … Buddhism is the religion of
Tibet and Tibetans and this is the religion that is facing degeneration in Tibet so it's
essential for us to preserve it here. So that is why we do all the rituals, we give
offerings, so that's a different aspect of the struggle. … That's very religious in terms of
cultural preservation. But when we are doing political activities, when it's time for us to
condemn the Chinese government for their atrocities in Tibet, I don't think we would
refrain … we wouldn't let the rigid rules of Buddhism, or any religion for that matter, be
a constraining factor. [italics added]102
By viewing Buddhism in this way, rather than in strict religious terms, much of the discrepancies
between Buddhism doctrine and practice can be more easily understood. It can certainly not be said
that this view is true for all Tibetans. However, the role that Buddhism plays in unifying the diverse
Tibetans culture is a key part of it's value.
When Tibetans loosen the hold of the strict ethical commitments set forth by Buddhist
philosophy, it greatly widens the avenue for more methods of protest. New, and more confrontational,
resistance strategies are continually being experimented. As Tibetans learn more and more about
western nonviolent tactics, they seeks to use them to make their own movement grow in a more
effective direction.
Justified Violence
In addition to the orthodox Buddhists, and the more secular nonviolent practitioners, there is
102
Tenzin Dhardon, Interview by the Author (TWA Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
35
also a portion of Tibetans, not insignificant in size, who do not necessarily remain committed to
nonviolence. Rather, their current use of nonviolence is due to practical circumstances rather than
moral stances, and they feel that the use of violence could be justified to free the Tibetan nation.
When presented with a hypothetical situation in which Tibet could engage in a successful
violent resistance and regain their independence, there were more than a handful of people who said
they would support such a movement. Tenzin Dhardon observes that the practical aspect plays a large
role in keeping Tibetans nonviolent. She states that it is a combination of both the practical and the
moral reasons for nonviolence that people adhere to it, but that if practically a nonviolent struggle was
an option, “then people would abandon their moral obligations and go for it. But when both factors are
equally applicable, when there's a spiritual side to it, a moral factor involved, and when it's not practical
in any way, then there is absolutely no scope for a person to step into a violent method.” 103 Although
she gives moral and practical factors equal value, her comment shows that it is the practical rather than
moral obligations that are actually holding many Tibetans back. She states also that the TWA would
never support a violent movement, even if it could be successful because they found their actions on
the principles of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and also because as women, they feel they should be the
“brighter aspect” of society, and the “crusaders of humanity.” That being said, she feels that “definitely
there will be a section … of Tibetan society that would go for [violence] if it is feasible, practical, and
if it is going to end the Chinese occupation in Tibet people wouldn't mind giving up their lives and
taking lives obviously.”104
One organization that does not include a commitment to nonviolence in their constitution is the
Tibetan Youth Congress. While during interviews, TYC members made a strong point of saying that
all of their actions so far as an organization have been nonviolent, they never the less have a reputation
103
104
Tenzin Dhardon, Interview by the Author (TWA Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
Tenzin Dhardon, Interview by the Author (TWA Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
36
of being a more radical group, willing to look into a variety of means for the sake of freeing their
country. According to Jane Ardley, TYC has “tried and tested most radical methods” of protest, “both
nonviolent and violent” and have “debated the use of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, reasoning that
other organizations such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization have adopted this approach with
some success.”105 It is true that the TYC currently uses only nonviolent methods, but they do not shut
themselves off from other options. As explained by Tenzin Yangdon, the Public Relations Secretary of
TYC,
In the Tibetan Youth Congress constitution we have clearly stated that we, the Tibetan
Youth Congress Members, we will fight to gain our independence at the cost of our
lives. … Sometimes that's interpreted as youth will take a more violent [stance], and I
think the way it's stated is ambiguous. … But what we try to explain is that although we
have so far been nonviolent, the people who come after us, we can't predict what road
they will take.106
While not explicitly saying that violence will occur in the future, Yangdon goes on to convey the deep
frustration that is rising within the youth as the situation remains static in Tibet. Acts such as selfimmolation, which occurred after the TYC hunger strike in 1998, and more recently after Tibetan New
Year in 2009, demonstrate the full height of these frustrations. Then, when people feel they have no
means of effecting change, they could turn to violence. According to Dhondup Dorjee, Vice President
of the TYC, the frustration of these Tibetans makes them the most dangerous of all, for “you cannot
write off [the possibility that] … some try to mobilize these frustrations and organize.”107
To Yangdon, the concern of conflicting with Buddhism principles is not so large of an issue. In
her view, “there will always be conflict … with some beliefs. … It is just like the hunger strike
question, for some it's violent, for some it's nonviolent. Everybody has their views and they have a
105
Jane Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (New York:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 57.
106
Tenzin Yangdon, Interview by the Author (TYC Office, Dharamsala), 8 May 2009.
107
Dhondup Dorjee Shokda, Interview by the Author (TYC Office, Dharamsala), 8 May 2009.
37
right to it. But we have a right to do what is right for our movement.”108 The priority here is not
adherence to a particular set of principles, but using whatever strategy is available and effective for the
Tibetan nation.
She compares unwavering commitment to nonviolence to a starving person
maintaining a preference for only vegetarian food. “You can't choose that you'll only be nonviolent in
your movement,” she says, “In a movement you have to be open.”109 Dhondup Dorjee feels that the
Tibetans must take whatever approach they feel will be most effective for them regardless of outside
opinion. He gives an example of his point, saying
Tibet will be independent if I am ready to kill two sheep … is it violence? Yes. But I
will not remain silent and say 'oh no I don't want to commit that violence, let Tibet be
under China.' No one would say that. … And I am ready to kill a thousand sheep.
That's violence, and I agree that's violence. So whatever that people are able to do, they
should be able to do.110
Both Tenzin Yangdon and Dhondup Dorjee also pointed to the parable of the sailor on the ship, who
kills the merchant captain to save the 500 people on board, as well as prevent the captain from
obtaining the negative karma. They interpret this story to justify the use of violence for a greater good.
While killing was negative, it was still superior to letting 500 other people die. The same reasoning
could be applied to the Tibetan struggle. Dorjee believes that as long as one is killing the right person,
and not the innocent, one could certainly make an argument for violence to achieve a greater end.
Yangdon finds self defense to be excusable under Buddhist teaching. Using the example of rape,
imagery that is often applied to the Tibetan issue, she asks if a rape victim who strikes back is
considered violent. “Tibetans have a right to defend themselves. … [If] someone comes into your
home and takes it over … you can just simply watch or you can fight back.”111
The Tibetan Youth Congress, with its already more controversial reputation, are not the only
108
109
110
111
Tenzin Yangdon, Interview by the Author (TYC Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
Tenzin Yangdon, Interview by the Author (TYC Office, Dharamsala), 8 May 2009.
Dhondup Dorjee Shokda, Interview by the Author (TYC Office, Dharamsala), 8 May 2009.
Tenzin Yangdon, Interview by the Author (TYC Office, Dharamsala), 8 May 2009.
38
people who could foresee the use of violence. There were multiple other Tibetans who, presented with
a hypothetical situation of a successful violence movement, said that they would support such action.
One of these individuals is Chime Youngdung of the TNDP, who believes that violence could be
acceptable for a greater cause. While insisting that the Tibetans have absolutely no means to fight for
themselves, Youngdung says that if “some powerful country will say … they will fight for China …
maybe the Dalai Lama says please [don't fight for Tibet]. … But we are common people. According to
me … if U.S. or some other country will fight China for Tibetan cause, I'll say 'thank you' [at] that
time.”112 In a situation where the Tibetans could fight for themselves, and win the battle, Youngdung
says he would definitely choose for Tibetans to fight. He reasons that it would be acceptable because
in order for Tibetans to help the world as a whole become a more peaceful place, they must first be free
themselves. Giving the example of two people who are drowning, one must save oneself from the
water before one can save the second person from also drowning. So too it would be justifiable for
Tibet to fight and free itself so that it may contribute to a greater world peace.
However, he
acknowledges that in Buddhist philosophy, this violence would be “completely wrong.” 113 Like many
others, he chooses to separate his views from the official Buddhist teachings, favoring rationalizations
that are more compatible with his personal and political views.
Another individual who shares these views is Jahdor Phuntsok Wangchuk, The Genera
Secretary of GuChuSum. Wangchuk expressed his feelings that the nonviolent approach will one day
be fruitful, although it may take a great amount of time. He also acknowledges the strong influence
that Buddhism has had on the resistance movement. However, he stated that he would definitely
support a violent movement if it was practically feasible and would bring success. “Generally war is
very bad,” he says, “ but if you are fighting for truth and justice then it is quite acceptable. … Right
112
113
Chime Youngdung, Interview by the Author (NDPT Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
Chime Youngdung, Interview by the Author (NDPT Office, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
39
now we do not have the confidence to wage a war against the Chinese … so that's why we are
following peaceful path.” However, were the Tibetans to have the confidence and the means to fight,
he would not oppose it because in his view, “Tibetan Buddhism is a part of the culture, it is not a pillar
of Tibetan society [italics added].”114 Therefore, when the time comes to fight, it is necessary to fight,
regardless of what Buddhism teaches. The survival of the society at large takes precedence over any
ideological values.
These individuals represent a group of Tibetans who, although they do not directly promote
violent action, feel that it would be acceptable on a theoretical level or under more conducive
circumstance. However, there are others still who openly advocate the use of violence against the
Chinese occupation. Lhasang Tsering is certainly one of the most notable in this category. Born in
exile in India, Lhasang Tsering always felt a deep passion for the cause of Tibetan independence, and as
a young man, he went to Nepal to join what would ultimately be the last shadow of the guerrilla
resistance force. He was actively involved in political activities in Dharamsala, including the Tibetan
Youth Congress, until the Tibetan government officially switched to the Middle Way approach as their
policy. Feeling he could not work with a system that was not fighting or independence, Tsering opened
a used book store in Dharamsala that he still runs today, and is an avid writer and poet. He remains
extremely frustrated with the government's Middle Way policy, and even more so with what he
perceives as a complete lack of action against China. As Tsering says, “I have this dark and dismal
assessment about Tibet's future not just because of what China is doing to destroy Tibet, to wipe out
the Tibetan nation, but also, perhaps I should say even more so, because of what we are not doing to
counter what China is doing.”115 Interestingly, when Lhasang Tsering speaks of the need for action, his
language mirrors that of Gandhi as he explains that “the struggle for freedom is not about winning and
114
115
Jahdor Phuntsok Wangchuk, Interview by the Author (GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala), 11 May 2009.
Lhasang Tsering, Interview by the Author (Bhagsu Hotel Restaurant, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
40
losing, it is about right and wrong, and the struggle for truth and justice must continue regardless” of
whether or not there is a guarantee of success.116 Tsering believes that the Tibetan people are willing
and waiting to die for their freedom, if only given the opportunity. “There is no resistance” he says,
“giving up is not resistance. The Tibetan leadership, His Holiness, the Tibetan exile government, have
given up.”117 Their passive methods are not methods at all.
As no one else has come up with an effective strategy for resistance, or in his view any strategy
at all, Lhasang Tsering has devised his own plan to cause the Chinese to leave Tibet. Tsering sees the
largest threat to Tibet today to be the policy of population transfer, in which the Chinese are
overwhelming the Tibetans in Tibet with sheer numbers. The way to remedy this, according to Tsering,
is to make it unprofitable and unsafe for the Chinese to live in Tibet. He calls his plan the “Strategy of
the Mosquito,” and describes it as an “urgent call on each and every Tibetan, young and old, men and
women, to take part in an active struggle for independence.”118 Tsering has detailed his plan in a two
act, unpublished play entitled “Time is Running Out,” which consists of a series of conversations
between Tibetans in exile and within Tibet about how to deal with the Chinese occupation. The various
characters serve as voices for Lhasang Tsering's argument, ultimately concluding that the “Strategy of
the Mosquito” is the best course of action. This strategy essentially consists of guerrilla warfare tactics,
in which individuals and small groups of people would attack 'soft' targets within China including
malls, hotels, bridges, factories, and restaurants. The Tibetans should team up with other oppressed
minorities in China, and give no indication that they are the ones perpetrating the violent acts. Just as a
person cannot easily swat away a swarm of mosquito, so too China will not be able to defeat a
movement made up of many violent individuals working independently. The play ends with a violent
scene in which Chinese officers burst into the meeting, and are killed by the Tibetans in the battle that
116
117
118
Lhasang Tsering, Interview by the Author (Bhagsu Hotel Restaurant, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
Lhasang Tsering, Interview by the Author (Bhagsu Hotel Restaurant, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
Lhasang Tsering, Interview by the Author (The Bookworm, Dharamsala), 19 May 2009.
41
ensues, marking the beginning of the new movement.
With regard to violence, Tsering does not consider to Buddhist philosophy the most relevant to
the Tibetan issue. He even finds it hypocritical for people to adhere so strongly to the teachings of
nonviolence, when so much other violence is over looked in Tibetan history and in every day life. As
he states,
We have to remember that Tibetans are human beings first and Buddhist second. And
we have to also remember that even as a Buddhist nation, we are a nation of voracious
meat eaters. When we can support and condone the slaughter of innocent sheep, and
goats, for a more tasty meal, not survival, then for me it seems hypocritical to talk about
compassion for an enemy who [is] out there to eliminate, wipe out the Tibetan nation
and the Tibetan religion and culture. So therefore I insist that the general Buddhist
philosophy limitations on taking life should not come into play in our decision making
to struggle for freedom, indeed I actually call this a struggle for survival.119
At the same time, Lhasang Tsering does not consider his suggestion of violence to be against
the Buddhist view, and finds it more than justifiable. Tsering compares watching Tibet be destroyed to
watching a little girl be raped without acting.
One does not have the time to sit and ponder the
situation, one must respond despite the likelihood of ones success. The girl being raped also cannot be
expected to not strike back in self defense, and Tsering feels that such an act is not against Buddhist
philosophy. As he explains,
First and foremost, from a Buddhist point of view, suicide is the ultimate violence. …
Suicide is the ultimate sin, and to that extent, we are committing, as I see it, national
suicide by not struggling for freedom. You can struggle and fail, that is another matter.
But not to struggle to free the nation is to commit national suicide. So to that extent,
even from the Buddhist point of view, it is wrong.120
While Lhasang Tsering strongly advocates a return to violent resistance, he does not have a
fundamental problem with using effective nonviolent action, saying simply that if people want to resist
nonviolently then “they better get down to doing it.” It is inaction that Tsering finds so damaging. This
119
120
Lhasang Tsering, Interview by the Author (The Bookworm, Dharamsala), 19 May 2009.
Lhasang Tsering, Interview by the Author (Bhagsu Hotel Restaurant, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
42
again mirrors Gandhi's thought that violent resistance would be preferable to passively allowing evil to
occur.
However, he also does not believe that China is vulnerable to Tibetan noncooperation
techniques. Lhasang does acknowledge the work that many NGOs are undertaking, but feels that
without a clear goal (which he does not consider the Middle Way to be), and a coherent plan of action,
all these activities are just “brick making without a building plan,” which does not create a house but
only “a million bricks scattered across a desert surface.”121 The resistance needs to be active, not
passive and disjointed, and it is out of frustration with this that Lhasang Tsering supports a strong,
violent attack on China.
Implementing Active Nonviolence
The tendencies towards violent action that occur in the Tibetan struggle, and indeed in many
instances of violence, come out of a feeling of frustration and a lack of viable options. It is often felt
that if violence could be effective it would be far batter than passivity, and so for any Tibetan who
seeks a more active struggle, violence is the obvious path.
This problem has been acknowledged by the Dalai Lama as he is confronted with Tibetans
using means that he deems inappropriate. In reference to his meeting with guerrilla fighters in 1959,
the Dalai Lama writes that although he could never condone their violent action because of the conflict
with Buddhist philosophy, he:
very much admired their courage and their determination to carry on the grim battle they
had started for our freedom, culture, and religion. … By then, I could not in honesty
advise them to avoid violence. In order to fight, they had sacrificed their homes and all
the comforts and benefits of a peaceful life. Now they could see no alternative but to go
on fighting, and I had none to offer.122
A similar situation occurred in 1998, when the Dalai Lama addressed the hunger strikers of the Tibetan
121
Lhasang Tsering, Interview by the Author (Bhagsu Hotel Restaurant, Dharamsala), 12 May 2009.
122
Mikel Dunham, Buddha's Warriors: The Story of the CIA-Backed Tibetan Freedom Fighters, the
Chinese Invasion, and the Ultimate Fall of Tibet (New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2004), 289.
43
Youth Congress. Again he stated, “I admire their determination and enthusiasm. But I consider hunger
strike unto death as a kind of violence. … However, I cannot offer them suggestions of any alternative
method … I am in a state of dilemma.”123 Although he values the principle of nonviolence, the Dalai
Lama seems to recognize the limitations it creates. In response to these frustrations, Tibetans who
remain committed to nonviolent methods are seeking to open up more options of nonviolent action
within the movement.
The strong association of nonviolence with passivity is partly due to the nonconfrontational
policies of the Tibetan Government, which are often criticized for this reason. The main focus of
government action has been on pursuing negotiations and rallying international support. However,
Gene Sharp points out that neither of these methods are realistic or reliable strategies. He states that
“when the issues at stake are fundamental, affecting religious principles, issues of human freedom, or
the whole future development of the society,” of which Tibet fits into all categories, “negotiations do
not provide a way of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. … Such a shift will only occur through
struggle, not negotiations.”124 He also finds fault with the emphasis on international support, saying
that “there are grave problems with reliance on an outside savior. … Usually no foreign saviors are
coming, and if a foreign state does intervene, it probably should not be trusted.” 125 The only solid way
for a people to free themselves is through an active, internal resistance campaign.
Tibetans today are finding more and more ways of implementing active nonviolent methods.
Seeing that the biggest component lacking in the movement is strategy, Tibetans are turning to the
examples of many other nonviolent struggles, from the United States to Serbia, for tactics and training.
By learning from other movements, Tibetans are widening their range of available nonviolent methods.
123
Jane Ardley, The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives (New York:
RoutledgeCurzon, 2002), 48.
124
Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, Third U.S.
Edition (Boston: The Albert Einstein Institution, 2008), 10.
125
Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, Third U.S.
Edition (Boston: The Albert Einstein Institution, 2008), 6.
44
Organizations like ANEC and SFT put the highest priority on educating Tibetans on nonviolent
strategy. They believe that once the full options are seen, less people will feel the need for violence, as
it is not the only active method available. As Tenzin Choeying explains, “It's natural for people to take
up arms when there is no way out, like a cornered animal. … our effort is to empower people with
knowledge, the skills, so that we don't have to kill ourselves. If we educate … and also try to be more
creative then there are 100 things we can do.”126 Gene Sharp has outlined over 200 methods of
nonviolent resistance, and SFT has noted that the Tibetans have only used 40% of those tactics so far,
leaving a wide range of possibilities still open for the freedom struggle. 127 To spread knowledge of
these options, ANEC hold frequent Active Nonviolent workshops to educate Tibetans, and especially
Tibetan youth, about nonviolent strategy. SFT also put a large amount of energy into youth education,
seeking to empower the next leaders of the movement with these nonviolent strategies. While nearly
everyone has some idea of nonviolent philosophy, training people in effective tactics, and creative
nonviolence will build and stronger, and more effective movement in which people can constructively
channel their frustrations instead of becoming desperate. According to SFT Deputy Director Tenzin
Dorjee, when “people are backing up their faith with strategy,” it shows a very positive progress in the
movement.128 SFT's training camps cover a wide range of material from basic ways to resist arrest and
talk to the media, to more advanced techniques. For instances, SFT trained the activists who scaled the
Golden Gate bridge and hung a “Free Tibet” banner from it when the 2008 Olympic torch was being
carried through San Fransisco.
The March to Tibet in 2008 was a land mark protest in the Tibetan resistance in terms of
employing nonviolent strategy. Designed after Gandhi's salt march, the March to Tibet was a plan for
Tibetans to walk to the border, and cause a direct, nonviolent, confrontation. It was the first time that
126
127
128
Tenzin Choeying, Interview by the Author (SFT Office, Dharamsala), 8 May 2009.
Tenzin Dorjee, Group Interview with Emory Students (Chinar Lodge, Dharamsala), 9 March 2009.
Tenzin Dorjee, Group Interview with Emory Students (Chinar Lodge, Dharamsala), 9 March 2009.
45
all the protesters has undergone nonviolent training. Tenzin Choedon feels that this training added a
discipline and confidence to the marchers that made the protest unlike any other before. 129 In addition
to the tactics the individual marchers employed, the protest also took advantage of new technology. A
satellite was used for the first time ever in a Tibetan protest to send photos and reports from remote
mountain locations. Emphasis was also placed on the use of mass media and websites. SFT places a
high value on the role that technology can play, as it increases communication within the movement,
and spreads their messages farther and faster than ever before. It has been used more and more over the
years inside and outside of Tibet, and opened up whole new avenues for the Tibetans to express
themselves, the potential of which is still being discovered.130
This recent shift towards active
nonviolent training and strategy is leading the movement in a way such that the Tibetans can maintain
an aggressive struggle without being forced to compromise their nonviolent values.
Conclusion
As Tibetans reconcile their Buddhist heritage with modern practicalities of a political struggle, a
variety of opinions have emerged in the community. Contrary to the popular perception that all
Tibetans give unwavering support to nonviolence on Buddhist grounds, views surrounding the use of
nonviolence are complex. While some remain devoted to the strictest aspects of nonviolent philosophy,
others feel that survival is a far more important issue, one which could justify violent action. The
people who fall into the middle of these two extremes seek to continue an active struggle in a way that
does not compromise their religious history and cultural values. They recognize that it is not necessary
to adhere to the full extent of the philosophies in order to pay them due respect and still value the more
general aspects of the nonviolent teachings. Rather, more and more people are looking to modernize
129
130
Tenzin Choedon, Interview by the Author (SFT Office, Dharamsala), 18 May 2009.
Tenzin Dorjee, Group Interview with Emory Students (Chinar Lodge, Dharamsala), 9 March 2009.
46
their strategies and bring in tactics and strategies that will allow them to advance their movement while
remaining nonviolent. This holds strong implications for the future of the Tibetan Struggle. While one
can still not fully answer the question, 'will the Tibetans resort to violence,' the possibility certainly
becomes less likely when organizations can channel frustrated energy into constructive nonviolent
means. What affect these views will have on the Tibetan issue at large still remains to be seen.
As Tenzin Dorjee observes, “Tibetans have generally been very good at adapting their faith to
the need of the hour.” When the situation at hand calls for action, people will turn their faith and use it,
“and convince themselves that this is the right thing to do. Because if something [is] the only thing to
do, then you have to justify that in your mind.”131 For some, this means justifying violence. But for a
growing number of people, this means molding nonviolence into an applicable form. As more
experience is gained with adapting nonviolent faith to the need of an active struggle, the movement
continues to evolve and expand, and carries the bright potential of a new wave of nonviolent activity
unlike anything the Tibetans have undertaken before.
131
Tenzin Dorjee, Group Interview with Emory Students (Chinar Lodge, Dharamsala), 9 March 2009.
47
Bibliography
Ardley, Jane. The Tibetan Independence Movement: Political, Religious and Gandhian Perspectives.
New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.
Chhosphel, Samten, Khenpo Sonam Gyatso, Tsering Dakpa, Penpa Dorjee, Jampa Samten, and
Lobsang Norbu Shastri, ed. Selected Writings and Speeches: A Collection of Selected Writings
and Speeches on Buddhism and Tibetan Culture by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche. Varanasi: Central
Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, 1999.
Dunham, Mikel. Buddha's Warriors: The Story of the CIA-Backed Tibetan Freedom Fighters, the
Chinese Invasion, and the Ultimate Fall of Tibet. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2004.
Gyatso, Tenzin His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Ancient Wisdom, Modern World: Ethics for the New
Millennium. London: Abacus, 2000.
Laird, Thomas. The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama. New York: Grove Press, 2006.
Lazar, Edward, ed. Tibet: The Issue is Independence, Tibetans-In-Exile Address the Key Tibetan Issue
the World Avoids. New Delhi: Full Circle, 1998.
Kraft, Kenneth, ed. Inner Peace, World Peace: Essays on Buddhism and Nonviolence. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1992.
March to Tibet, DVD. Edited by Chemey Tenzin and Sonam Wangdu. Dharamsala, India: Tibetan
People's Uprising Movement, 2008.
The Middle Way Approach: A Framework for Resolving the Issue of Tibet. Dharamsala: Department of
Information and International Relations, CTA, 2006.
Mukherjee, Subrata and Sushila Ramaswamy, ed. Facets of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 1: Nonviolence and
Satyagraha. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 1996.
48
Powers, John. Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1995.
Roebert, Donovan, ed. Samdhong Rinpoche, Uncompromising Truth for a Compromised World:
Tibetan Buddhism and Today's World. Bloomington: World Wisdom Inc, 2006.
Sharp, Gene. From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, Third U.S.
Edition. Boston: The Albert Einstein Institution, 2008.
Shwartz, Ronald D. Circle of Protest: Political Ritual in the Tibetan Uprising. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1994.
Uprising in Tibet 2008: Documentation of Protest in Tibet. Dharamsala: Tibetan Center for Human
Rights and Democracy, 2008.
Vyas, Bhaskar and Rajni Vyas. Experiments with Non-Violence: The Dalai Lama in Exile from Tibet.
New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 2007.
Interviews
Choedon, Tenzin. Interview by the Author. SFT Office, Dharamsala. 8 May 2009.
Choedon, Tenzin. Interview by the Author. SFT Office, Dharamsala. 18 May 2009.
Choeying, Tenzin. Interview by the Author. SFT Office, Dharamsala. 7 May 2009.
Choeying, Tenzin. Interview by the Author. SFT Office, Dharamsala. 14 May 2009.
Dagpo, Sonam N. Interview by the Author. CTA Office, Dharamsala. 18 May 2009.
Dhardon, Tenzin. Interview by the Author. TWA Office, Dharamsala. 12 May 2009.
Dorjee, Tenzin. Group Interview with Emory Students. Chinar Lodge, Dharamsala. 9 March 2009.
Lekshey, Karma. Interview by the Author. TCCR Office, Dharamsala. 18 May 2009.
Samkhar, Tenpa C. Interview by the Author. ANEC Office, Dharamsala. 11 May 2009.
Samkhar, Tenpa C. Interview by the Author. ANEC Office, Dharamsala. 19 May 2009.
Shokda, Dhondup Dorjee. Interview by the Author. TYC Office, Dharamsala. 8 May 2009.
Shokdda, Dhondup Dorjee. Interview by the Author. TYC Office, Dharamsala. 18 May 2009.
Tsering, Lhasang. Interview by the Author. Bhagsu Hotel Restaurant, Dharamsala. 12 May 2009.
Tsering, Lhasang. Interview by the Author. The Bookworm, Dharamsala. 19 May 2009.
49
Tsundue, Tenzin. Group Interview with Emory Students. Chinar Lodge, Dharamsala. 19 March 2009.
Tsundue, Tenzin. Interview by the Author. His Residence, Dharamsala. 9 May 2009.
Wangchuk, Jahdor Phuntsok. Interview by the Author. GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala. 11 May 2009.
Wangdu, Geshe Kunjo. Interview by the Author. His Residence, Dharamsala. 7 May 2009.
Wangyal, Lobsang. Interview by the Author. His Office, Dharamsala. 11 May 2009.
Woebar, Ngawang. Interview by the Author. GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala. 11 May 2009.
Woebar, Ngawang. Interview by the Author. GuChuSum Office, Dharamsala. 14 May 2009.
Yangdon, Tenzin. Interview by the Author. TYC Office, Dharamsala. 8 May 2009.
Yangdon, Tenzin. Interview by the Author. TYC Office, Dharamsala. 18 May 2009.
Yoenten, Geshe Lobsang. Interview by the Author. IBD Guest House, Dharamsala. 10 May 2009.
Youngdung, Chime. Interview by the Author. NDPT Office, Dharamsala. 12 May 2009.
Resources
All of the people I interviewed work at various organization in Dharamsala, and in nearly all cases, I
made contact with them by simply walking into their offices and setting up an appointment. I also
found e-mail to be very useful in making contact, although not everyone would respond as quickly as
would be necessary. Unfortunately, I do not still have most of the contact information that I did when I
was in India. However, a lot of contact info can be found online. Here, I have simply provided a list of
the people I interviewed, with as much other information as I still have.
Tenzin Choeying – India National Director Students for a Free Tibet
e-mail – [email protected]
phone - +919816368335
Tenzin Choedon – Programme Director Students for a Free Tibet
e-mail – [email protected]
phone - +919816479812
Note: SFT Office on Jogiwara Road
50
Sonam N. Dagpo – Secretary of International Relations, Central Tibet Administration
Note: harder to get time with, best to work for an appointment in advance
Tenzin Dhardon - Research and Media Officer, Tibetan Women's Association
Note: Office on Bagsu road
Tenpa Samkhar – Executive Director, Action Nonviolence Education Center
Note: Office in Lower Dharamsala, very friendly people
Dhondup Dorjee – Vice President Tibetan Youth Congress
Tenzin Yangdon – Research and Media Officer Tibetan Youth Congres
Note: Office on TIPA road
Lhasang Tsering – interesting individual with many unconventional opinions. Can be found easily by
going to his Bookstore, the Bookworm, on the road on the way up to Chinar lodge
Tenzin Tsundue – Activist, no contact information available, but I contacted him via the Emory contact
with him, he has a facebook
Phuntosk Wangchuk – General Secretary GuChuSum
Ngawagn Woebar – President GuChuSum
Note: Office of Jogiwara road
Lobsang Wangyal – independent activist, never had any contact info for him as I was randomly
introduced to him through another Tibetan, but he has his own website lobsangwangyal.com A very
interesting character, good to talk to, puts on the Miss Tibet Pageant, Tibetan Music awards and other
events.
Chime Youngdung – President National Democratic Party of Tibet
Note: office under the SFT office, he also has a facebook
Geshe Lobsang Yoenten – teacher at IBD, contacted through Ani-la Kelsang Wangmo
Note: speaks English but its a little rough
Geshe Kunjo Wangdu – teacher at IBD, contacted through Ani-la Kelsang Wangmo
Note: need a translator
Karma Lekshey – Tibetan Center for Conflict Resolution
Note: office in lower Dharamsala, center focuses more on community rather than political activities
51