One of the documentaries we watched this week was The Sun Behind the Clouds. It chronicles the protests of China’s occupation of Tibet that broke out in 2008 (most noticed here in disruption of the travel of the torch around the world for the Beijing Olympics). It also pays particular attention to the Tibetan government in exile in Dharamsala, Northern India, with extensive interviews with the Dalai Lama.
What comes through is the conflict between those who want to use non-violent resistance to liberate Tibet and the Dalai Lama’s long-held position of “the middle way,” which calls for “autonomy” but not independence for Tibet. In other words, the Dalai Lama has accepted living under Chinese rule, but wants the exiles to be able to return and the culture to be preserved and lived out in Tibet.
During the course of the movie, a group of the non-violent resisters embark on a march to Tibet, more than 2,000 miles across India. This follows some of the most serious protests in Tibet since China occupied it in 1951. The protests in Lhasa, Tibet, show monks on the street being harmed, crying out, taking their case to the media cameras. It reminds me of George Orwell’s story, “Shooting an Elephant,” which I used to teach regularly and in which the local monks spat at the British officials. When the monks hate you, I say, you’re on the wrong side.
And also, when the monks take to the street against you, your days are probably numbered. So it was for the British Empire (yes, I know it was more complicated than that) and also seems to have been for the recent oppressors in Burma.
China crushed the 2008 protests, and things seem to have very much settled down. So we’re left wondering what could have made a difference? I have to say, it drew clear attention to my own worldview that I felt, watching the film, the Dalai Lama could have made a huge difference.
A major tenet of my education has been the power of non-violent resistance, especially when led by a charismatic person of high moral character. Ghandi. Martin Luther King, Jr. There is nothing you can’t do– including bringing down an empire. The Chinese can’t kill the Dalai Lama. They would be in trouble if they arrested him. Nothing would mobilize people more than the Dalai Lama leading a group of non-violent resisters into Tibet. Right?
I suppose they could run tanks right over him and his followers, but it seems unlikely. This action, undertaken with the presence and support of the Dalai Lama, would mobilize millions across the world. And it is a recognized formula: bring attention to the oppression and suffering and mobilize people for change. It’s the founding principle of the Arab Spring. It’s Occupy Wall Street, but with a really clear agenda and a really great leader.
But the Dalai Lama won’t do it. And I’m not being sarcastic when I recognize he won’t do it because he is enlightened. He is post-nationalist in this way. He advocates preserving culture while abdicating self-rule. It is not compromise when he says it so much as transcending the ordinary categories. It is spoken like someone who has lived in community in exile for 60 years.
In May 2011, the Dalai Lama, through complex parliamentary procedures, separated his spiritual role from his political role, and retired as political leader of Tibet’s government in exile. It was, as much as anything, an attempt to protect the spiritual role from the grips of China. China’s government has said it will have to approve any future Dalai Lama after this one dies. If it is not a political role, their claim has much less validity.
Meanwhile, he continues to advocate a “middle way,” although China rejects this position and sees it as a pretense to hide the real aim of political independence. To which I say, “You calling the Dalai Lama a liar?” If so, you are on the wrong side.