My Spiritual Journey Read online

  I love the image of swords transformed into plowshares

  On October 17, 2007, in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, it was again in his capacity as a human being that the Dalai Lama received the Congressional Gold Medal, almost twenty years after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo.

  He mounted the podium in traditional monastic dress: a large saffron shawl was draped over his burgundy robes, leaving his right shoulder free. Around him, solemn statues fixed in marble the memory of the heroic time of Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers of the American nation, and frescoes commemorated the battles in which George Washington, Lafayette, and other patriots fought for the independence of the United States.

  President George W. Bush moved the audience when he mentioned that as a little boy the Dalai Lama “kept a model of the Statue of Liberty at his bedside. Years later, on his first visit to America, he went to Battery Park in New York City so he could see the real thing up close.”

  The president continued on the theme of liberty, recalling that his forefathers won their independence through a revolution and that “Jefferson counted freedom of worship as one of America’s greatest blessings.” According to the president, “This freedom does not belong to one nation, it belongs to the world.”

  The president spoke on behalf of the American government. To defend freedom, his country has resorted to force. Speaking as policeman of the world and as the head of the most militarily powerful nation, George W. Bush defended a peace threatened by terrorism.

  The Dalai Lama, however, spoke as a human being and advocated a path of peace toward peace.

  There is a magnificent passage in the Bible that urges us to transform swords into plowshares. I love this image of a weapon made into a tool in the service of basic human needs. It symbolizes an attitude of inner and outer disarmament. In the spirit of this ancient message, it seems important to me today to emphasize the urgency of a policy that is long overdue: to demilitarize the entire planet.13

  Peace is not decreed, nor is it imposed by force. The fruit of compassion, peace “ripens in the human heart and shines on the world,” the Dalai Lama tells us.

  Human beings prefer the way of peace

  I am sure that everyone agrees on the necessity for overcoming violence, but in order to eliminate it completely, it must first be analyzed.

  From a strictly practical standpoint, we note that violence can sometimes be useful. A problem is resolved more quickly by force. But such a success is often obtained at the expense of the rights and well-being of others. Any problem resolved that way engenders yet another problem.

  If solid reasoning is put to the service of a cause, violence is useless. When one is motivated solely by a selfish wish and cannot get what one wants through logic, one resorts to force. Even in the framework of a simple family argument or friendly disagreement, if you support yourself with valid reasoning, you will tirelessly defend your position, point by point. If you lack reasonable motives, however, you are soon overcome with anger, which is never a sign of strength, but of weakness.

  In the end, it is important to examine one’s motivations, as well as those of the adversary. Violence and nonviolence can take many forms, which are hard to distinguish if one keeps solely to an external viewpoint. A negative motivation produces a profoundly violent action, even when it seems friendly and gentle. On the other hand, a sincere, positive motivation is essentially nonviolent in practice, even if circumstances impose a certain severity. In any case, I have the feeling that only compassionate concern for others can justify recourse to force.

  I have heard some Westerners say that in the long run the nonviolent methods of passive resistance advocated by Gandhi are not suitable for everyone and that they are more appropriate in the East. Being more active, Westerners expect immediate results, whatever the situation, even at the cost of their lives. I think this attitude is not always the best one. On the contrary, the practice of nonviolence is beneficial in every case. It simply requires determination. Even though the liberation movements in Eastern Europe quickly attained their goal, nonviolent protest, by its very nature, usually requires patience.

  With this in mind, I pray that the supporters of a democratic movement in China remain peaceful, despite the brutality of repression and the difficulties that lie ahead for them. I am sure they will remain peaceful. The majority of young Chinese who are members of it were all born and grew up in a very harsh Communist regime. But in the spring of 1989, they spontaneously put into practice the strategy of passive resistance dear to Mahatma Gandhi. I see in this a clear indication that, as a last resort, human beings prefer the way of peace, despite all indications to the contrary.

  Gandhi is the political model for nonviolent struggle, and his portrait is present in many Tibetan administrative offices. A great figure of peace and reconciliation, the Mahatma was honored posthumously at the same time as the Dalai Lama during the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. By doing so, the Nobel Committee meant to repair its mistake in not having conferred this distinction on him before.

  To win India’s independence from British colonial power, Gandhi organized not just nonviolent resistance but also civil disobedience, noncooperation with the occupiers, and protest marches. When the Dalai Lama is reproached for limiting Gandhi’s inheritance to nonviolence, he points out that the context does not allow them to reproduce in Tibet the methods that freed India from English control. Gandhi could in fact defend himself freely in a court of law, and although the colonial regime of the British Raj was severe, it still respected the basic rights of individuals, which is not the case with the Chinese authorities. Therefore, the Dalai Lama advocates cultivating the spirit of Gandhi’s struggle while adapting it to the Tibetan situation.

  What would Gandhi have done in my place?

  MY FIRST VISIT to New Delhi was to the Rajghat, Mahatma Gandhi’s cremation site. I wondered what shrewd advice he would have given me if he had still been alive. I thought he would certainly have put all his strength, all his willpower, and his whole personality into a nonviolent campaign for the freedom of the Tibetan people. That comforted me in my decision always to follow his example, whatever obstacles may arise. And more than ever, I resolved not to associate myself with any act of violence.

  The Dalai Lama never wavered from his initial decision to respond to Chinese aggression with nonviolence. Ever since the start of his country’s occupation, he has tried to open up a dialogue with Beijing and defend the rights of Tibet in the context of the Seventeen-Point Agreement, despite its blatant unfairness. When, in 1958, the armed rebellion of the Khampas became more radical in the east of the country, he asked them to surrender their weapons. These Freedom Fighters had vowed to fight to the death for Tibet. Since they could neither break this vow nor disobey the Dalai Lama, many of them took their own lives.

  To this day, the spiritual leader of the Tibetans has persisted in the path of nonviolence. During the Lhasa riots of 1987 and 1988, he was happy to see monks who had gotten hold of Chinese rifles breaking them instead of turning them against the occupier, thus saying no to the language of weapons.

  In March 2008, when the inhabitants of Lhasa rose up and committed anti-Chinese acts of violence, the Beijing government accused the Dalai Lama of instigating these actions. The Dalai Lama replied that in that case they would have to take the Nobel Peace Prize away from him, and he challenged the Chinese authorities to come to Dharamsala to investigate and try to prove their allegations.

  But he deplored the fact that at the same time as the monks were engaged in peaceful protests, which were cruelly repressed, some young Tibetans were organizing lootings, fires, and robberies. While admitting that their actions had been inspired by despair and by having been treated as second-class citizens in their own country, he condemned the use of violence and declared that if his people strayed from the nonviolent path, he could no longer be their spokesman.

  Commenting on the choice of nonviolence from a
political standpoint, Samdhong Rinpoche asserts that this method has produced unhoped-for results in terms of international sympathy for the Tibetan cause. If armed combat had been encouraged by the Dalai Lama, it would not have met with success, and by now Tibet would have sunk into oblivion.14

  7

  I Appeal to All the Peoples of the World

  I Denounce the Sinicization of Tibet

  I ask the world not to forget that thousands of Tibetans were massacred

  ON MARCH 10, 1959, the Tibetan people proclaimed the independence of Tibet, after having suffered almost nine years of occupation. A foreign government is, unfortunately, still present in Tibet, but I am proud that the spirit of our people is not crushed and remains unwavering in its resolution to fight until we regain our independence. I know that the struggle that was begun some years ago against the occupier is still going on in Tibet against the invader and oppressor, who hides under the name and appearance of a “liberator.” I can confidently declare that the civilized world is learning more every day how those who claim they act in the name of liberty are crushing the liberty of their defenseless neighbors.

  The world has become aware of the terrible events that occurred in Tibet thanks to two enlightening reports by the International Commission of Jurists. These documents pointed out that the Chinese wildly flouted the basic human rights of our people, who had been massacred by the thousands solely because they wanted to assert their freedom to live in keeping with their cultural and religious heritage. The documents also emphasized that the Chinese made themselves guilty of genocide for having killed many Tibetans with the intention of destroying the Tibetan religion and for having deported thousands of children to China.

  The sympathy these events aroused throughout the world was shown by the United Nations resolution in 1959 calling for the end of the exactions that are depriving the Tibetan people of their basic human rights and historic autonomy. I assert that we have been dispossessed, not of autonomy, but of independence. As for the Chinese, this appeal fell on deaf ears. Things have only gotten worse, as shown by the continuous, incessant flood of refugees coming from Tibet.

  The question was discussed in plenary session at the United Nations assembly. I appealed to all those who support us and to the assembly itself that China [be urged to] put an end to its aggression by restoring Tibet’s independence. Half-measures would not be much help. Our gratitude went out to the federation of countries that have supported our cause—Malaysia, Thailand, and El Salvador. I appealed to India, our powerful neighbor that continues to welcome thousands of Tibetan refugees, to use its influence to support our cause.

  I am aware that Tibetans in Tibet are bearing the torments brought about by foreign domination. I appeal to them to keep their courage and their resolve to regain their independence intact. For my part, I should point out that I am far from pleased to be so far from my country and my beloved and courageous people. I want to tell them that I share their hope and their pain.

  To my thousands of compatriots in India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim, I want to say that we all bear the heavy responsibility of preparing ourselves for the day we can return home and build an independent, happier, greater Tibet. The new Tibet will need thousands of learned, skillful men and women, capable of democratizing it without betraying our cultural and religious heritage or denying our soul.

  During the Chinese occupation, before I had to leave Tibet, the Kashag and I tried to introduce land reforms and other changes to Tibet, but as everyone knows, our efforts were cut short by the Chinese. The Communists are today imposing so-called reforms that have a stranglehold on our people. I have studied them carefully and have come to the conclusion that, as they are applied, the Tibetan people will be reduced to a mental and economic state of servitude.

  Such reforms conform neither to the United Nations Charter nor to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The reforms I envisage should introduce a fair distribution of the country’s wealth while preserving intellectual, moral, and religious freedom. On this subject, I will repeat what I declared some time ago now in Dalhousie: “To make Tibet into a rich, strong and vigorous nation, special privileges and large tracts of property, whether they belong to monasteries or to aristocratic families, should be yielded, and everyone should learn to live with simple people and to help them.” I also declared: “Transformations are necessary in every sector. The structure of the government should also be reformed profoundly, so that the people can be more closely connected to the policies of the government and the administration of the country. The task and responsibility of establishing reformed political and religious institutions rest on us all.”

  The world is rightly concerned about the murders recently committed in the Congo. I too speak up to condemn these attacks, whether they are perpetrated in the Congo, in Algeria, or elsewhere. Yet I still want to ask the world not to forget that thousands of Tibetans were massacred, and are being massacred, solely because they refused to accept foreign domination. The cause of truth and justice should prevail, and at the end of this night of horror and suffering, the dawn of a clear day will rise for Tibet and its people.

  I continue to express my profound gratitude to India, Bhutan, Sikkim, and Nepal for the hospitality and kindness with which these neighbors have welcomed us. I would also like to thank the various international and Indian organizations as well as the individuals who have generously helped and aided us. Since large numbers of refugees continue to flow in, I appeal to everyone that they continue to support us as generously as they have done up to now.15

  On March 10, 1961, the Dalai Lama decided to commemorate the Lhasa insurrection, to honor the sacrifice of the thousands of Tibetans who had protected him against the Chinese threat. Thus, the custom of a solemn gathering on March 10 of every year was established, marked by a speech recapitulating the events of the past year.

  The Dalai Lama knows that his words, uttered from the headquarters of the Tibetan government in exile in Dharamsala, will be received and listened to beyond the Himalayas and eagerly read and reread in the Land of the Snows by a people who place all their hopes in him. He also knows that each word of his speech will be analyzed by the Chinese government, and as the years pass he has heard more and more echoes of his statements in the West, where opinion has mobilized for Tibet.

  Samdhong Rinpoche relates how carefully the text of the March 10 speeches is worked over and then discussed by the Dalai Lama, as attested by the handwritten drafts, which are full of deletions and emendations.16

  Since the start of exile, the Dalai Lama has appealed to the world’s conscience; in 1963 he deplored the fact that “the community of nations is turning a deaf ear. “ On September 9, 1959, from exile, he had submitted the Tibetan question to the United Nations, denouncing the violation of his country’s independence on a political level and the violation of individual rights, forced labor, massacres, summary executions, and religious persecution on a human level. The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted an initial resolution on October 21, 1959, thanks to Ireland, Malaysia, and Thailand, with the major powers showing no support for Tibet in the context of the Cold War.

  The UN’s International Commission of Jurists was able to prove that Tibet was a de facto independent state before 1950. Drawing on the Convention for Prevention and Repression of Genocide adopted by the UN in 1948, it wrote a report establishing that China was guilty of the genocide denounced by the Dalai Lama.

  In 1960 the Dalai Lama launched a second appeal to the United Nations. For the second time, the General Assembly voted to adopt a resolution noting the violation of human rights in Tibet. Then, in 1965, a third resolution was adopted denouncing the continued violation of the basic rights of Tibetans by China. India, which until then had abstained on the Tibetan question, voted for the resolution that would order China to respect international law. But this resolution remained without effect in the absence of coercive measures on the part of the member states of the UN.


  The debate then moved from the General Assembly to the UN’s Human Rights Commission, which, in 1991, adopted a resolution denouncing the persistent violation of human rights and liberties in Tibet. Still, after that date the question of human rights in Tibet was no longer added to the agenda of the plenary sessions.

  Some idea of the difficulty of the cause defended by the Dalai Lama can be gained when we consider that no country has up to now recognized the Tibetan government in exile, even though a few states have said they favored the membership of the Tibetan Parliament in exile in the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

  In the name of humanity, I appeal to all the peoples of the world

  ON MARCH 10, we solemnly commemorate the day the Tibetan people, innocent and unarmed, spontaneously rebelled against the conquest of the Chinese imperialists. Years have passed since that memorable date, but the specter of that macabre tragedy still looms over our holy land. Tyranny and oppression continue, and words cannot describe our sufferings.

  Twice the United Nations assembly called for an end to the inhuman behavior against the Tibetans. For my part, many times I have launched appeals for a fair, equitable settlement of this tragedy. But as the International Commission of Jurists recently noted, “neither the resolution of the General Assembly nor any appeals to human conscience have had any effect on the policies of communist China.”