The Failure of Non-violence in Tibet
Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Chinese clampdown in Tibet that drove the Dalai Lama into exile. Since that time the Dalai Lama has lived in India and advocated a policy of non-violent resistance by the Tibetans towards the Chinese occupation. Speaking in Japan last November he admitted that this policy had failed. “Our approach never affects the inside situation… Things are not going well.”
Since China invaded Tibet in 1951 1.2 million Tibetans have died as a direct result of the occupation according to the government in exile headed by the Dalai Lama. During this time the Dalai Lama has never demanded Tibetans take up arms against the Chinese. This has made the Dalai Lama a celebrity but has done absolutely nothing to loosen Beijing’s grip on Tibet.
Non-violent resistance has worked in some cases. Most famously Mahatma Gandhi’s campaigns for Indian independence were successful, although anarchist Peter Gelderloos argued that history has elevated Gandhi’s role at the expense of those who advocated guerrilla warfare such as Subhas Chandra Bose. Similarly Martin Luther King’s non-violent actions pushed forward the Civil Rights agenda in the US - although Malcolm X and the Black Panthers have not received much credit. Most recently Nelson Mandela triumphed in South Africa, although his party the ANC was at times throughout its history a violent organization (Mandela himself advocated violence early in his career and only repudiated it while later incarcerated.)
These successes and the failures of non-violence in Tibet suggest the following limits to nonviolence.
1. The oppressed group must outnumber the oppressor and continue to do so throughout the struggle.
In India the British were a tiny minority who couldn’t hope to slaughter enough Indians before losing their grip on the subcontinent. This was also the situation in South Africa.
However Tibet is being colonized by Han Chinese in an effort to populate the country with a majority of ethnic Chinese, making Tibetans a minority of 6 million in their own country. The longer these immigrants remain in Tibet, the more “Chinese” Tibet will become.
2. The Oppressing Government must be subject to the opinion of its citizenry.
In essence, the oppressor “must have a conscience.” Prior to India’s independence, British public opinion gradually became sympathetic towards the Indian independence movement. After World War 2 this trend accelerated from the exhaustion of the expense and effort required in maintaining its empire. This strong support by the British public constrained the actions of the British government even more than the empty coffers in Parliament.
In China the government controls the press and determines the limits of opinion its citizenry can express. It is not subject to public opinion except in extreme cases of national emergencies such as natural disasters. The average Chinese does not support Tibetan independence and even if he did there is no way for him to influence government policies towards the Himalayan kingdom.
3. The Oppressing Government must view compromise as the lesser of evils.
It must be afraid of something. In the case of Great Britain, the British were well aware of the slaughters of English citizens on the Subcontinent during the various mutinies and rebellions that occurred in the 19th century. The white South African government under Pik Botha viewed the ANC under Mandela’s firm grip as a preferred negotiating partner compared to other, more radical groups.
In the case of Tibet China fears nothing or no one. The cause of Tibet has been relegated to a bumper sticker slogan among its trading partners, and efforts to organize boycotts against Chinese goods over its policies in Tibet have failed. In Tibet itself there has been very limited violence, so there has been no pain that would force Beijing to consider the limited autonomy advocated by the Dalai Lama.
All three of these elements must exist in order for a non-violent campaign to be successful. The Tibetan independence movement has none of these. This is why the Dalai Lama has failed to free his people in Tibet, and why Tibetan independence will be doomed unless a significant change in tactics and philosophy occurs by its proponents.
The Failure of Non-violence in Tibet | Hazel Woods:
[...] the rest here: The Failure of Non-violence in Tibet | Tags: british, Celebrity, chinese, dalai, global-warming, Gossip, government, philosophy, [...]
11 March 2009, 9:19 ambullet:
While communism hasn’t exactly been kind to Tibetans, it did finally bring them into the 20th century and free them from the religious tyranny of the Lamas. That always gets played down or ignored in discussions of Tibetan independence. This is not a situation in which citizens of a republic were stripped of their rights and freedoms by an invading oppressor. Tibet was actually better off after the Chinese toppled the religious oligarchy. I read something once upon a time in which an old Tibetan man said something to the effect of, “Life under China is hard, but still much better than when I was a slave.”
Maybe Tibetans won’t take up arms against China because 1) they would be slaughtered in horrific numbers, or 2) they don’t want a return of the Lama. This is spun by the Lama and his supporters into a “campaign of nonviolence”.
I agree with your analysis; I just had a different take on the idea.
This immigration policy, though, smacks of a social engineering project to silence China’s critics on this issue. It looks evil and manipulative. Stupid move.
11 March 2009, 12:59 pmWatcher of Weasels » Is Barack Obama The Ultimate Weasel?:
[...] The Razor – The Failure of Non-violence in Tibet [...]
11 March 2009, 2:49 pmCheat Seeking Missiles » Wednesday Reading - A Weasel In The White House:
[...] The Razor – The Failure of Non-violence in Tibet [...]
11 March 2009, 7:22 pmRight Truth:
Senator Specter’s payoff for betraying his party: betrayal of his state – Blogburst
Thanks to the author Error Theory:We now know one of the payoffs that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter received for being one of three Republican Senators who allowed President Obama’s trillion-dollar Spendulus bill to become law. WPXI in Pittsburg…
12 March 2009, 8:29 amThe Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Eye on the Watcher’s Council:
[...] The Razor, “The Failure of Non-violence in Tibet” [...]
12 March 2009, 12:05 pmThe Failure of Nonviolence Today « Ben Garbus:
[...] Tibet click here. For what Scott Kirwin has to say on the failure of nonviolence in Tibet click here. According to him, the Dalai Lama himself has admitted to the failure of nonviolence, claiming this [...]
6 October 2011, 8:10 pm