I found this most interesting article written on the topic of self immolations and HHDL. I have highlighted some points which struck a core with me (my comments in blue). Do read as it provides an interesting insight:
Posted on: 10:45 am, July 19, 2012.
(CNN) — In a crass display of moral blindsight, Stephen Prothero’s blog post on Tibetan self-immolations blames the victim instead of the bully.
Tibetans are stuck in one of the world’s last remaining and most brutal colonial occupations. It is through this lens, more than anything else, that we must understand the self-immolations.
This is a very strong statement which describes the desperation of the situation and hence I understand where it comes from, but I do not think it justifies such a brutal and selfish (yes i find it selfish because one does not look at the potential negative repercussions it has on others and is really just a cop-out. I mean no disrespect to anyone and these are merely my own views.) response.
Since 2009, at least 44 Tibetans — monks, nuns and lay people — have set themselves on fire to protest China’s rule; 39 self-immolations have occurred this year alone. Every one of these acts is a direct result of China’s systematic assault on the Tibetan people’s way of life, their movements, their speech, their religion, and their identity.
Instead of responding to China’s oppression with revenge — a path far more tempting to the basic human instinct — Tibetans have chosen a means far more peaceful. Without harming a single Chinese, they set aflame their own bodies to shine a light upon the atrocity taking place in their homeland. They sacrifice their own lives not in the name of “God” or “Buddha,” as Mr. Prothero so dismissively suggests, but in an altruistic intention of alerting the world to their people’s suffering.
As stated above, my views on self immolations differ. I do not find it altruistic... sure it does not harm another in the context that one only burns oneself. However, surely keeping one's own opportune condition alive is far more benefiting to others then merely ending it. On top of that, what about the negative visual impact or even the negative psychological impact it may have on others not knowing the true reason behind one's 'sacrifice'.
By demanding that the Dalai Lama condemn these individuals who have shown compassion beyond our imagination, Mr. Prothero has betrayed a colossal indifference to the courage and circumstances of those fighting for the same democratic freedoms and human rights that he himself enjoys.
How can the Dalai Lama condemn the self-immolators when their motivation was evidently selfless and their tactic nonviolent? Would we ask Gandhi to condemn activists in the Indian freedom struggle who were killed while lying on the road to block British police trucks? Or the hunger strikers who were starving themselves to death in order to protest the injustices of British rule in India?
I do not believe for one moment that is the reason HHDL has not spoken up with regards to the self immolations. I believe HHDL is taking a most compassionate approach! Why? Because if HHDL supports the self immolations, more people will think it is ok to set oneself up on fire for a so called larger cause. And the reason why HHDL does not condemn it either is because HHDL probably does not want to be seen as being pro China. Either way, there will be something said of HHDL and in staying "neutral", there is no want from either side.
By every measure, it’s the Chinese leaders and not the Dalai Lama who are responsible for the self-immolations in Tibet. They have the power to ease tensions, reverse restrictions, and stop the self-immolations overnight. But instead of seeking a lasting solution to the Tibet issue, they continue to aggravate the situation by intensifying the repression.
Yes I agree on this point because if China takes the high ground and take the first steps to ensure peace and stability, this could be seen as a step in the right direction. But alas, it does take two to tango... From what I observe, either party is inflexible in it's demands, how can there be a mutual discussion or a common solution!
No one is more tormented by the self-immolations than the Dalai Lama, whose bond with the Tibetan people goes deeper than language can express. In fact, it is the singular calming influence of the Dalai Lama that has kept the movement nonviolent to date.
As a universal icon of peace, the Dalai Lama’s spiritual influence goes well beyond the Buddhist world. Nevertheless, his moral authority is not an infinite resource. There is an invisible moral rope with which the Dalai Lama has bound the Tibetans to nonviolence for four decades. But this rope is wearing thin as China’s escalating tyranny drives Tibetans into a corner.
Self-immolation, which emerged as a tactic from being cornered for too long, represents the final outpost in the spectrum of nonviolent resistance. If this last remaining space for expression, no matter how drastic, is taken away, the rope might just snap. Chaos will ensue, vastly increasing the chances of a full-blown ethnic conflict that even the Dalai Lama will have exhausted his moral capital to stop.
From all of Mr. Prothero’s accusations, the most offensive is his comparison of self-immolations to sati — a social system in ancient India where widows were pressured to throw themselves into the funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. Self-immolation — a political act of reason — is the polar opposite of sati — a blind act of superstition.
There is not a single case of Tibetan self-immolation that was prompted by social pressure or religious obligation. Every incident of it, unexpected as it is, shakes the nation, the community, not to mention the family, to its foundations. Every Tibetan prays in his or her heart that the latest might be the last.
The image of a person engulfed in flames is shocking, often disturbing, to people living in the free world. For all our obsession with violent movies, graphic video games, and live coverage of wars, it still rips our hearts to pieces when we see a human in flames.
Rather than indulging in philosophical investigations into the morality of self-immolations, we must see these actions for what they are: urgent pleas for help from a people pushed to the brink by decades of ruthless repression.
Desperation? I dont think so... Escapism perhaps? Whichever the case, one needs to truly look at why one does such an act. Even in it's seemingly non-violent action, the mind set is similar to that of a suicide bomber (I mean no disrespect to the comparison but am merely highlighting the reasons behind both actions... which is to push for a 'result' through one's sacrifice without thought of any repercussion!)
One hopes that most people are focused on the real question at hand: how shall we answer this call?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Tenzin Dorjee.
By Tenzin Dorjee
