RSS
Home
The future of a figurehead part I
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Many people from both sides of the Tibet-China-Dalai Lama conflict have expressed reservations as to the benefit of having a ruler given nearly absolute authority over religious and state matters, and the reinstitution of the formerly theocratic administration of Tibet remains an issue among those who support the political extrication of Tibet from Chinese control.
Would it be beneficial to Tibetans financially, politically, and religiously for Tenzin Gyatso to resume precisely his previous role as leader of the Tibetan people, if he ever were to return? Would he be able to, would it be accepted or even possible for him to rule as before?
According to a Tibetan friend of mine studying in China, some young Tibetans have very little interest in or knowledge of Kundun, as the Dalai Lama is familiarly known by admiring followers.
Even more are frustrated “that the Dalai Lama is too conciliatory and that a violent liberation movement would be necessary after his death”. This is a scary thought that young Tibetans, who are the natural reflection of future attitudes of the Tibetan people, are allegedly more interested in shaking off Chinese control of ancestrally Tibetan territories than reinstating the Dalai Lama or even coexisting peacefully with Chinese presently residing in Tibet, which was made evident by a comment on a previous piece of mine and this recent article from the New York Times.
Kundun, which in Tibetan means “The Presence,” may not necessarily be revered among the future of Tibetan Buddhism as more than a figurehead of a troubled state.
Politically, few nations with overt and direct religious influence in the halls of power presently possess a credible status in world affairs, take Iran or Syria for example. Also, according to The New York Times article “An Olive Branch from the Dalai Lama,” sourced from www.Tibet.com, the government can NEVER go back to how it was pre-1959, and
“One signal is this: for the first time the Dalai Lama is willing to state that he is willing to accept the socialist system in Tibet under Communist Party rule. This is something Beijing has always demanded ,and, after long discussion, the Dalai Lama has agreed to do so.”
In a religious sense, while many presently make pilgrimage to Lhasa, there would certainly be a temporary increase in the influx of celebrating visitors and adulators, but that phenomenon would certainly pass a short time after the return of Kundun.
And in financial projections most Tibetans outside Lhasa are self-sustaining nomads or remote village dwellers who have little financial wealth to begin with, and had about as much when the Dalai Lama was the highest state administrator. Besides, Tibetan Buddhists shun connection to material possessions!
If this issue is ever to be resolved effectively it is important to look realistically at the possible methods of resolution and plausible, peaceful scenarios for the future, which will be discussed in later installments.
It is unlikely “the Chinese” will ever completely be removed from the Lhasa area: they are now more than two generations rooted as restaurateurs, merchants, doctors, and so forth.
It is more likely that Tibetans will be given full recognition of their rights in their administration and self-government of Tibet and policy-formation of issues like birth control and planned parenthood, but for the Chinese to just up and leave is nearly unthinkable. Many Chinese consider themselves Tibetan-Chinese from Tibet, as a student at Chatham University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania recently described herself.
Certainly in considering scenarios of future self-governance and Tibetan rights it is safe to say the Dalai Lama's days of complete authority are over, he has said as much, and Kundun's return would do little more than give the Tibetan people a sense of closure and greater peace, unless years of pent up frustration and anger trigger even more violence by the presence of a figurehead perceived by the future of his people as “too conciliatory.”
