My Spiritual Journey Read online

  The next day, both her legs were lost.

  Assailed by death on every side,

  I was a powerless mother; “Amala, save my brothers, I’m going to rest a little.”

  Until I no longer heard her moans lost in the distance,

  I looked behind me, through my tears and the torture of this pain.

  My legs carried me, but my mind remained with her.

  For a long time afterwards, in exile, I continue to see her

  Waving her frozen hands at me.

  The oldest of my children, but barely a teenager,

  Leaving our country was an ordeal.

  Every night I light a butter lamp for her,

  And her brothers join me in prayer.22

  Tibet, Sanctuary of Peace for the World

  My people’s contribution to world peace

  THE WORLD HAS BECOME more and more interdependent, so that a lasting peace on the national, regional, and global levels is possible only if we take the interests of all people into account. In our time, it is crucial that we all, strong and weak alike, contribute our share. As the leader of the Tibetan people and as a Buddhist monk, I am devoted to the principles of a religion based on love and compassion. Above all, I am a human being, since it is my fate to share this planet with all of you, my brothers and sisters. As the world is growing smaller, we need one another more than we ever did in the past. This is true for all parts of the world, including the continent I come from.

  These days, in Asia as well as elsewhere, tensions are high. There are open conflicts in the Middle East, in southeastern Asia, and in my own country, Tibet. To a great extent, these problems are the symptom of underlying tensions that exist in the major powers’ spheres of influence.

  In order to resolve regional conflicts, we must take into account the respective interests of all the countries and peoples concerned, large and small. Without global solutions that include the aspirations of the peoples most directly concerned, half-measures or expedients will only create additional problems. The Tibetans want keenly to contribute to peace, both on a regional and a world level, and they think that they are in a unique position to do so. Traditionally, we are a nonviolent people who love peace. Ever since Buddhism was introduced to Tibet over a thousand years ago, Tibetans have practiced nonviolence and respected all forms of life. We have extended this attitude to our country’s international relations. Tibet’s highly strategic position in the heart of Asia, between the great powers of the continent, historically confers on us an essential role in maintaining peace and stability. It is precisely for this reason that, in the past, Asian empires have taken care to stay out of Tibet by mutual agreement. The value of Tibet as an independent buffer state was perceived as an ingredient for stability in the region.

  When the newly formed People’s Republic of China invaded Tibet in 1950, a new source of conflict emerged. This was brought out when, following the national Tibetan uprising against the Chinese and my flight to India in 1959, tensions between China and India increased, which resulted in a border war in 1962. In 1987, once again, large military units massed on both sides of the Himalayan border, and tension was once again running dangerously high.

  What was actually in question was not the boundary line between India and Tibet, but the unlawful Chinese occupation of Tibet, which has given China direct access to the Indian subcontinent. Chinese authorities have tried to downplay the problem by stating that Tibet has always been a part of China. This is not true. Tibet was a fully independent state when it was invaded by the People’s Liberation Army in 1950.

  Ever since the Tibetan emperors unified Tibet over a thousand years ago, our country has been able to defend its independence, until the middle of the twentieth century. Tibet in the past extended its influence over neighboring countries and peoples, and in later times it came under the domination of powerful foreign rulers: the Khans of Mongolia, the Gurkhas of Nepal, the Manchu emperors, and the British present in India.

  Of course, it is not rare for states to undergo foreign influence or interference. So-called satellite relations are perhaps the most convincing example of this—great nations exercising their influence over less powerful allies or neighbors. As studies carried out by the highest legal authorities have shown, in the case of Tibet the occasional submission of our country to foreign influences has never implied a loss of its independence. And it is incontestable that at the time of the invasion of the Communist armies of Beijing, Tibet was from every standpoint an independent state.

  Chinese aggression, condemned by almost all nations of the free world, constituted a flagrant violation of international law. As the military occupation of Tibet continues, the world should remember that, even if the Tibetans have lost their freedom, according to international law, the Tibet of today is still an independent state occupied illegally.

  I am not trying to get involved in a political or legal argument over the status of Tibet. My wish is merely to emphasize the obvious and indisputable fact that as Tibetans, we are a distinct people with our own culture, language, religion, and history. Without Chinese occupation, Tibet would keep its role as a buffer state, thus protecting and guaranteeing the promotion of peace in Asia.

  Despite the holocaust inflicted on our people through the past decades of Chinese occupation, I have always tried to reach a solution through direct, frank discussions with the Chinese. In 1982, following the change in the Chinese leadership, and thanks to direct contacts with the Beijing government, I sent my representatives to initiate talks on the future of my country and my people.

  We began the dialogue with an open, positive attitude, eager to take into consideration the legitimate needs of the People’s Republic of China. I hoped that this attitude would be reciprocal and that a solution would eventually be found to satisfy and preserve the aspirations and interests of both parties. Unfortunately, China continued to respond to our efforts in a defensive way, taking our detailed report of the very real difficulties in Tibet merely as criticisms of its regime.

  But there is worse yet. In our opinion, the Chinese government has allowed the chance for real dialogue to pass by. Instead of dealing with the real problems of six million Tibetans, it has tried to reduce the whole Tibetan question to my own personal status.

  It is my most sincere wish, and that of the Tibetan people, to restore to Tibet its invaluable historic role by once again converting the entire country, including the three provinces of U-Tsang, Kham, and Amdo, into a zone of stability, peace, and harmony. In the purest Buddhist tradition, Tibet would thereby offer its services and hospitality to all those who defend world peace, the good of humanity, and concern for the natural environment we all share.23

  It was in 1987 that the Dalai Lama gave this speech to the Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress. After Mao’s death, Deng Xiaoping had enacted a policy of generally easing restrictions in Tibet, beginning in 1979. The Chinese Communist Party called together a first Work Symposium on Tibet in the spring of 1980 and sent Hu Yaobang, general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, to evaluate the situation in Tibet. Shocked by the great poverty of Tibetan society, when he returned he suggested the radical reforms of decollectivizing property, granting greater autonomy, and decreasing taxes. It was decided that the number of Chinese administrators would be reduced by two-thirds, leaving the country’s management to the Tibetans themselves, who would be charged with reviving their culture. Political prisoners, imprisoned since 1959, were released, and the Chinese Communist Party invited exiles, notably the Dalai Lama, to return to the country to “take part in the socialist reconstruction.”

  The Tibetan government in exile sent three investigative missions to Tibet in 1979 and 1980. Their visit aroused popular jubilation that surpassed in fervor anything the Chinese could have imagined. The Dalai Lama’s brothers and sisters were present, and their compatriots rushed at them to touch them and tear off pieces of their clothing, which were carried as relics. These pieces of cloth were precio
us, for they came from people who were close to their exiled spiritual leader, for whom their veneration had not flagged. Twenty years of indoctrination and brutal repression had not shaken their faith, much to the chagrin of the Communist forces. The second visit was cut short because the crowd in Lhasa became uncontrollable.

  In September 1980, the Dalai Lama offered to send fifty teachers from the community in exile to teach in Tibet. He offered to open a liaison office in Beijing to reestablish confidence, but China equivocated.

  In March 1981, the Dalai Lama took note of this in a letter to Deng Xiaoping, while still insisting that teachers be swiftly authorized to lead their educative mission in Tibet. A few months later, in July, Hu Yaobang replied, asking the Dalai Lama to return to Lhasa, where he could enjoy the same political status and the same conditions of life as before 1959.

  It was to this new context that the Dalai Lama alluded when he mentioned the representatives sent by his government in 1982 and 1984 to Beijing. But disappointment lay in store for them, since the Chinese uncompromisingly declared that they wanted to discuss only one single point: “the unconditional return of the Dalai Lama to the motherland.”

  The period of liberalization, which had allowed for a resurgence of the Tibetan way of life and religion, did not last long. In 1984 a second Work Symposium on Tibet called the leadership of Hu Yaobang into question, criticizing him for allowing Tibetan nationalism to be reborn. He was dismissed as the head of the Communist Party, and once again, Chinese policies became stricter. This was when the Dalai Lama, at the invitation of the U.S. Congress, decided to bring the Tibetan cause onto the international scene—accompanied by a message of peace for the world.

  I propose that Tibet become a sanctuary of ahimsa for the world

  I PROPOSE THAT ALL OF TIBET, including the eastern provinces of Kham and Amdo, be transformed into a zone of ahimsa, a Hindu term designating a state of nonviolence and peace.

  The establishment of such a zone of peace would be in keeping with the historic role of Tibet, a peaceful, neutral Buddhist nation and buffer zone between the great powers of the continent. It would also be in keeping with Nepal’s proposal to become a zone of peace, a project that was publicly approved by China. The Nepalese peace zone would have a much stronger impact if it included Tibet and the neighboring regions.

  Establishing a zone of peace in Tibet would force a withdrawal of Chinese troops and military installations. It would also allow India to withdraw its troops and military camps from the border regions in the Himalayas. An international agreement could guarantee China’s legitimate need for security and build relations of trust between Tibetans, Indians, Chinese, and the other peoples of the region. It would be to everyone’s advantage, especially China and India. Their security would be reinforced, and it would lighten the economic burden involved in maintaining large concentrations of troops on the disputed Himalayan border.

  Throughout history, relations between China and India have never been tense. It was only when the Chinese armies invaded Tibet, thereby creating for the first time a common border, that tensions appeared between the two powers, resulting in the war of 1962. Since then, many dangerous incidents have occurred. The reestablishment of good relations between the two most populous nations in the world would be greatly eased if they were separated, as was the case in the past, by a vast, friendly buffer zone.

  To improve relations between the Tibetan and Chinese peoples, the first step is the restoration of trust. After the holocaust of recent decades—in the course of which over a million Tibetans, or one-sixth of our population, lost their lives, while at least the same number languished in concentration camps because of their religious beliefs and their love of freedom—only a withdrawal of Chinese troops could initiate a real process of reconciliation. The large occupation force in Tibet reminds the Tibetans every day of the oppression and suffering they are all undergoing. Removal of the troops would be a strong signal letting us hope that in the future a relationship of friendship and trust could be established with the Chinese.24

  The transformation of Tibet into a zone of peace dedicated to the culture of ahimsa (nonviolence) was suggested by the Dalai Lama in his September 1987 speech before the Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress, in which he presented his Five-Point Peace Plan. The spiritual leader developed the argument that peace in Tibet could guarantee peace in the world, according to the principle of interdependence dear to him. This speech marked an important turning point in the analysis of the Tibetan situation by the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile.

  Until 1979, the central Tibetan administration and the Tibetan people had tried to recover Tibet’s independence by calling on the United Nations, without much success, to recognize the historic sovereignty of their country, which, contrary to what Chinese propaganda asserts, was never part of China. While acknowledging that the world was becoming more and more interdependent politically, militarily, and economically, the Dalai Lama decided to put all his efforts into resolving the question of Tibet through dialogue and negotiation.

  In 1979 Deng Xiaoping had decreed that anything about Tibet could be discussed except its independence. During meetings with members of the Kashag, the Dalai Lama studied the possibility of satisfying the aspirations of the Tibetan people while still accepting the idea that Tibet would become a Chinese province, provided a real status of self-management and autonomy were granted it. The incontrovertible condition to make this autonomy effective was to annul the administrative division of the country, arbitrarily imposed by the occupier, into five zones attached to Chinese provinces. The Dharamsala government proposed that all territories be reunified into one administrative entity to be self-managed democratically. Such measures would allow the preservation of Tibetan religion and culture by giving Tibetans the power to decide their own socioeconomic development. China would remain responsible for defense, foreign affairs, education, and the economy. It would gain the advantage of a long-term stability by preserving its territorial integrity. Tibetans would then have no more reason to demand their independence.

  These points form the basis of the policy called “the Middle Way,” conceived to be mutually beneficial to both parties and to serve peace in the world. It is still advocated by the Dalai Lama in his negotiations with the government of the People’s Republic of China. He gave a complete account of this a year after his 1987 speech in the United States when he addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

  In the name of the spiritual heritage of my people

  WE ARE LIVING TODAY in a very interdependent world. One single nation cannot solve its problems by itself. If we don’t realize universal responsibility, our very survival is in danger. That is why I have always believed in the necessity for better understanding, closer cooperation, and greater respect among the nations of the world. The European Parliament is an inspiring example. Having emerged from the chaos of war, the enemies of yesterday, in a single generation, learned to coexist and cooperate.

  Tibet is going through a very difficult period. Tibetans, especially those who are undergoing Chinese occupation, aspire to freedom and justice as well as to a future they themselves can determine, so as to safeguard fully their singular identity and live in peace with their neighbors. For over a thousand years, the Tibetans have adhered to spiritual values, defending the region’s ecology so as to maintain the delicate balance of life on the high plateau. Inspired by the Buddha’s message of nonviolence and compassion, protected by our mountains, we have tried to respect all forms of life and to abandon war as an instrument of national policy.

  Throughout our history, going back over two thousand years, we have been independent. At no point since the foundation of our nation in 127 BC have we ceded our sovereignty to a foreign power. As is the case for all nations, Tibet has gone through periods when its neighbors—Mongols, Manchus, Chinese, the English, and the Nepalese Gurkhas—have tried to subjugate it. These were brief episodes that the Tibetan people h
ave never agreed to interpret as a loss of national sovereignty. In fact, there were times when the kings of Tibet conquered vast territories in China and other neighboring states. But this does not mean that we Tibetans claim these territories now.

  In 1949 the People’s Republic of China invaded Tibet by force. Since then, Tibet has endured the most somber period in its history. Over a million of our people have perished as a result of the occupation. Thousands of monasteries have been reduced to rubble. A generation has grown up deprived of education, economic development, and national identity. Although the Chinese leaders have put certain reforms into effect, they have also brought about a massive population transfer of ethnic Chinese to the Tibetan plateau. This policy has already reduced the six million Tibetans to the condition of a minority.

  I have always forbidden my people to resort to violence in their efforts to put an end to their sufferings. I do believe, however, that a people has every moral right to protest against injustice. Unfortunately, demonstrations in Tibet have been violently repressed by the Chinese police and army. I will continue to advise nonviolence, but unless China abandons its brutal methods, the Tibetans cannot be held responsible for an aggravation of the situation.

  Every Tibetan hopes and prays for the complete restoration of their nation’s independence. Thousands of our people have sacrificed their lives, and our entire country has suffered in this fight. But the Chinese have entirely failed to recognize the aspirations of the Tibetan people, and they persist in their policy of brutal repression.