Nonviolence and Social Justice: Gandhi and the Dalai Lama - Essay Example

?Gandhi and Dalai Lama In the contemporary world, where violence is maximally adopted for achieving power, there also exists oppositions to that violence, in the name of non-violence or Ahimsa. Two notable faces in this regard, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dalai Lama believed distinctly in non-violence as a means to achieve social justice. Though both the personalities share common ideologies, there some differences between the two. Here we shall give a brief overview about the religious and political postures of these two great personalities, by comparing and contrasting their ideals as well as historical backgrounds based on which they started their nonviolence movement. Part I In South Africa, Gandhi tasted racial discrimination first-hand, when he was forcibly thrown out of the train, for traveling in the bogies reserved exclusively for the white people.1 This incident inspired him to act against the imposers of racial discrimination not only in South Africa, but also in his home country of India. He initiated non-violent protests which led to the removal of discriminatory rules against the South African Indians. His consistent and forceful non-violent protests helped him formulate his political ideology of Satyagraha. “By the time he left South Africa for his native India in 1914, at the age of 46, Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha was fully realised.”2 This ideology, which evolved from his practice of pacific resistance and non-cooperation in South Africa, mainly helped him to shape his mission in India to fight against the British Government for independence. According to him Satyagraha promoted civil disobedience which would be a right way to deal with the political and social oppressors. Satyagraha, adapted from several concepts of nonviolence, was coined by Gandhi stating its meaning as “Truth (satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force.”3 Literally, Ahimsa means nonviolence; but for Gandhi it was a much higher doctrine that suggests individuals have to fight against the ones, who attempts sacrilege and oppress them, through love and compassion. Non-violence, in the view of Gandhi “does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one’s whole soul against the will of the tyrant.”4 In the pursuit of social justice and for the independence of India against the British rule, Gandhi protested through Satyagraha and Ahimsa. He also inspired his followers to combat violence with nonviolence, hatred with love, and to bring an end to the social injustice, prevailing in the society. Satyagraha as his political tool gained a significant success, when the British government was forced to negotiate with Gandhi for the suspension of his civil disobedience movement, which ultimately led to the end of the British colonial rule in India. The British colonialism in India led to the internal struggle for power between the Muslim and the Hindus, which led to violent protests for separate state after the liberation of India. According to Gandhi, the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British mainly helped them to maintain their control over Indians, and that only led to the separation of India into separate countries of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh after its independence. “The British can retain their hold on India only by a policy of ‘divide and rule’. A living unity between the Muslims and Hindus is fraught with danger to their rule. It would mean an end to it.”5 Part II Dalai Lamas are the head monks of Buddhist Gelugpa lineage, who are regarded as the spiritual as well as the temporal leader of the Tibetan people. The present Dalai Lama, his holiness, Tenzin Gyatso, was recognized as the incarnation of 13th Dalai Lama and began his monastic education at the age of 6.6 In 1950, when he was just 15, the Chinese troops invaded Tibet, which elevated the Dalai Lama to be the head of the state, thereby attaining full power. Soon after the Chinese troops entered Tibet, the people protested in the streets and Dalai Lama held various negotiations with the Chinese leaders, which all turned to be futile. Thus, in 1959, he was forced to exile and consequently landed at Dharamsala in northern India, where the present Tibetan political administration functions. In the aftermath of his exile, he mainly followed Buddhist path of non-violence while protesting against the Chinese invasion. However, his Buddhist emphasis on non-violence restricted the Tibetan rebel group Chushi Gangdruk from continually fighting against Chinese forces.7 Dalai Lama does not show any open resentment against the Chinese government, and still favors peaceful negotiations with them has the way forward. However, his focus on peace and non-violence based on Buddhist principles does not seems to fully resonate with the Tibetans, who are living the Chinese occupied Tibet. As these Tibetans are indulging in violent struggles against the Chinese invaders, Dalai Lama appears helpless, but at the same time stresses his opposition to violence. In an interview, he mentions that “Worst of all, I felt I was losing control of my own people…In central Tibet they were growing more determined to resort to violence; and I felt that I would not be able to stop them much longer, even though I could not approve of violence and did not believe it could possibly help us."8 Based on Buddhist concepts, he envisages Tibet to be a land of peace which can exist in harmony with China. In spite of China failing to respond to his peace proposals, he still insists over his religious notion of ‘we’ instead of ‘they’ (when referring to China). He says, “There’s no room for violence in a world in which we must all live together, interdependent on one another.”9 The acts of self-immolation are carried out by the Tibetan people in order to draw the world’s attention towards the Chinese oppression in Tibet. The criticism that is leveled is, self-immolation bids are not happening often in Tibet nor in India, but in other foreign countries, incited by the libelous groups. The overseas Tibetan separatist forces “using” Dalai Lama sacrifice other people’s lives to reach their ulterior political motives.”10 This act is against the teachings of Buddhism and is indeed against the compassionate spirit of the religion. Self-immolation has accomplished nothing more than causing harm to the Tibetans, and also negative image to the movement. Part III Gandhi and Dalai Lama share few similarities as well as distinct differences. Though both have insisted on nonviolent form of protests, their political and social context greatly varies. That is, Gandhi achieved freedom for India from a responsive British Government, which eventually responded to his protest. However, in Dalai Lama’s case, the Chinese authorities are hostile to his pacifism. As far as social context is concerned, British and Indians were adversaries or opposites in terms of culture, religion and language. However, China and Tibet share a common culture, language and religion which make them indistinguishable. The other difference between them is, Gandhi justified violence in certain circumstances particularly asking people to choose violence over cowardice, while Dalai Lama did not. “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,” Gandhi wrote in his famous work, Doctrine of the Sword.11 On the other hand, Dalai Lama stated, “nonviolence is the only way, the proper way, to solve the problems among humanity.”12 Both of them emphasized love and compassion as part of their practice of nonviolence. Gandhi, through the Hinduism based concept of Ahimsa, stated that, “If you express your love, Ahimsa, in such a manner that it impresses itself indelibly upon your so called enemy, he must return that love.”13 Dalai Lama, being a Buddhist monk, developed compassion not just from a religious point of view, but also from a humanitarian view. Both Gandhi and Dalai Lama were greatly influenced by their respective religious traditions, while forming their positions on political and social issues, particularly non-violence. Gandhi used religion to make his followers disciplined and committed to social justice. “Prayer is the only means of bringing about orderliness and peace and repose in our daily acts.”14 Dalai Lama’s position as a spiritual leader aided him to send his message of peace to all his followers. Although it seems that both Gandhi and Dalai Lama’s adoption of non-violence could have been entirely inspired by their respective religious affinities, it is not the case, because their focus on non-violence emerged due to various other political and social aspects as well, and so it is universal in nature. In one instance, Lama states that he looks forward for “a democracy that has nonviolence and peace at its roots.”15 Few other examples of nonviolent protest found in the history include, Martin Luther King Jr who spearheaded the American Civil Rights Movement in 1950s inspired by the Gandhian thought of nonviolence. Yet another contemporary example includes Aung San Suu Kyi, who is peacefully fighting for the democratization of Burma against the authoritarian Military rulers. Conclusion: Nonviolence is being used from time immemorial to achieve freedom from oppressors, with varying success. While Gandhi seems to have achieved success through non-violence in the political and social context, Dalai Lama is yet to achieve it. These results kind of implies that the concept of nonviolence has significantly succeeded in the past, but when it comes to the contemporary times, it makes less relevance to the adversaries, because of their hostile approach towards pacifism. Yet there have been sizable examples, where application of nonviolence has brought favorable outcomes during fights for social justice. Read More