This questioning and
affectionate writing by the author pleads with observing our grounds but not
dodging away thus that prompts me to write: 'Desperate' seems to be our lax
poor stand behind the Oppression Line. Yeah, self-distortion for the shallow
goals. I wonder why a Tibetan like myself hasn't come out with such an
insightful and timely writing--timely for the grave misconception or sort of
easygoing touch looming sinister unknowingly demeaning the intrepid sublime
motives of those altruistic self-immolators to the state of petty despair or
desperation. So it jolts us out to recompose with a deeper sense before
handling the complex lives-costing significant matters like reminding ourselves
'Don't simplify what is complicated'. |
By
Christophe Besuchet
I do not
know if you are like me, but I find it extremely distressing to see how
commonly the adjective “desperate” has been used by the media and Tibetans in
exile to describe the self-immolation protests that have taken place in Tibet
since 2009 — seventeen cases so far as I write this. Phrases such as “truly
desperate acts” or “desperate self-immolation” have become part of the usual
vocabulary and are repeated automatically, as if writers, government officials
and politicians do not find it necessary to analyze for themselves the wider
ambitions behind these actions.
Etymologically,
the word desperation comes from the Latin desperatus, or “deprived of hopes”,
and carries a sense of misery and dejection when it is applied to protest
actions. Self-immolation by women and girls in Afghanistan (103 cases reported
between March 2009 and March 2010) [1] can probably be referred to as
“desperate acts” as those who carry them out prefer to die rather than to live
under constant domestic violence and abuse. When questioned about their
motives, Afghan women who survived their suicide attempts usually replied that
they felt as if they had “no way out”. One of them, when asked whether she had
a message for other women, even replied: “Don't burn yourself. If you want a
way out, use a gun: it's less painful.” [2]
Tibetan
self-immolations are entirely different. First, all available evidence
indicates that they are motivated by a greater cause, not by depression, social
pressure or financial burdens. As Sopa Tulku, a revered high-ranking lama who
immolated himself in Golok Darlak on 8 January this year, wrote : “I am not
self-immolating for my personal interests or problems, but for the six million
Tibetans who have no freedom and for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet.”
[3] Secondly, if Tibetans are deprived of their freedom, they are not deprived
of hope. Starting with Thupten Ngodup [4], the first Tibetan known to have set
himself on fire in April 1998 in New Delhi, those instances of self-immolation
about which we have any background information can be said to have been carried
out by happy and healthy people, who have no reason to die apart from offering
their lives to the struggle against China’s occupation of Tibet. Sopa Tulku,
again, was very clear in his political testament about not being desperate:
“Tibetans should not loose hope in the future, a day of happiness will surely
dawn”. This sense of optimism extends even to relatives; the mother of the
22-year-old Lobsang Jamyang, who immolated himself on 14 January, declared that
her family “has no regret for his death” as he had “sacrificed his life for the
Tibetan cause.” [5]
The hopes
derived from such fearless protests have also had a strong impact on those who
are resisting China’s oppression in occupied Tibet. Ngawang Choephel, an
ethnomusicologist and filmmaker who spent six years in a Chinese jail on
fabricated spying charges, noted recently: “In 1997 [sic], when I was in
prison, I heard news of Thupten Ngodup's self-immolation in India. (…) I was
encouraged and energized, like all other political prisoners in Tibet because
we felt that something would happen for Tibet.” He further added: “I am sure
that most of the Tibetans in Tibet who heard about Thupten Ngodup's historic
sacrifice must have been inspired and moved.” [6]
There is
definitely no sense of despair that we know of in any of these acts of protest.
Nor any hopelessness. As far as we can tell, these self-immolations are, like
every single act of resistance in Tibet, a striking example of confident
resiliency, of high hopes and of unflinching determination. These sacrifices
carry the dream and the moral strength of an entire nation and cannot be,
carelessly or sarcastically, reduced to some tragic but useless individual
acts.
This abuse
of the word "desperate", unintentional as it may be for many, is
damaging to these valiant actions and this must be pointed out. It is firstly
injurious to the person’s memory: it shows a troubling lack of respect for his
or her motives, determination and aspirations. By emphasizing some
unsubstantiated anguish and despair, a heroic act will be remembered merely as
a means of escape or, worse, as a sign of weakness and cowardice. In the
collective psyche, this could have detrimental consequences. The Chinese regime
understands very well the need to demean the memory of those who have committed
self-immolation and was, for example, quick to accuse, albeit without success,
Sopa Tulku of suicide because of a secret love affair. But it is also harmful
to the promise these self-immolations can represent for a renewed struggle
against China’s occupation: by branding them desperate and viewing them as
hopeless protests, we risk nipping in the bud any hope of a potential
revolution. And here we are touching a much more sensitive issue, at least as
far as the Tibetan leadership in Dharamshala is concerned.
When
committing self-immolation, these people certainly had several objectives in
mind. They probably did not think of just carrying out a one-shot dramatic
action, but considered their sacrifices as sparks that would set off a larger
resistance movement. It is usually explained that their aim was just to draw
the world’s attention to Chinese repression in Tibet, but this is not entirely
true. Many Tibetans, in Tibet and in exile, have indeed become disheartened
about meaningful political engagement on their behalf by foreign countries.
Besides, not a single reference was made by the self-immolators to the United
Nations or to any foreign government in their messages. The wider goal of these
self-immolations, probably not consciously planned but definitely anticipated,
was to serve as a wake-up call for Tibetans to unite and stand up against the
Chinese occupation. There is little doubt about this. These acts of defiance
have indeed inspired courage in those with the will to resist, and their
authors must have carefully considered the obvious eventuality of such a chain
reaction. The pro-independence protests that broke out in the Golok region
following Sopa Tulku’s self-immolation, or in Ngaba county following that of
Lobsang Jamyang, clearly demonstrate how these actions acted as catalysts —
even if the second protest seems to have been triggered by the inhumane beating
of Lobsang Jamyang, still in flames, by the police forces.
It would be
very surprising if Tibetans who set themselves on fire, especially nuns and
monks trained in the field of causality, were not conscious of the fact that
their actions can have tremendous consequences and can capture the discontent
and frustration of their compatriots. They may (or may not) have heard of
Mohamed Bouazizi, the man whose self-immolation sparked last year’s Tunisian
revolution and inspired the wider Arab Spring, but they definitely realize the
immense potential of unrest triggered by their actions. Looking at the
disproportionate number of Chinese paramilitary troops, police forces and SWAT
teams deployed in the restive areas in Tibet, it leaves no room for doubt that
Beijing realizes the explosive nature of these protests and is taking the
threats posed by them very seriously. Why, then, does Dharamshala not take
advantage of the situation?
The Tibetan
Government-in-Exile, obstinate and a prisoner of its own Middle Way Approach,
has actually every reason to minimize the scope of these self-immolations.
First, these confrontational actions go against the official policy of
appeasement which, high-ranking officials are convinced, is the only key to
resolving the conflict. But more importantly, demands for independence by some
of the self-immolators, and references to Tibet as a “nation” (rgyal-khab) by
others, clearly show the meager support for “genuine autonomy”.
It should
come therefore as no surprise that the Prime Minister Lobsang Sangay refers to
these acts of self-immolation in The Washington Post as “desperate acts” [7] or
declares in a recent interview that "monks are self-immolating out of
helplessness". [8] Nor should it comes as a surprise when, reading the
names of all those who set themselves on fire in Tibet, the same prime
minister, in front of nearly 200,000 Tibetans who had gathered in Bodh Gaya for
the Kalachakra teachings, somehow omitted the name of 20-year-old Tapey, the
first person who committed self-immolation in Tibet in February 2009.
But despite
Dharamshala’s reluctance to acknowledge the true ambitions of self-immolators
and the foreign media’s refusal to portray the Tibetan struggle for what it is,
something urgently needs to be undertaken to ensure that these actions do not
happen indefinitely. Putting an end to self-immolations — and making certain
they serve a real purpose — will, however, not be achieved simply by lifting
the sieges of monasteries and withdrawing paramilitary forces from restive
areas. Tanks and machine guns are merely a visible symptom of China’s ruthless
domination. No matter how much relief Chinese “restraint” (the word used by the
US Government’s Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues) [9] would provide to
local residents, it would represent no more than a short-term fix. One day or
another, protests will break out again, most probably on a more radical scale
and involving greater casualties.
Renewed
resistance, on the other hand, organized and more confrontational, would most
probably drive dedicated people inside Tibet to undertake actions that do not
forcibly involve setting oneself on fire. Since 2008, Tibetans in Tibet have
clearly demonstrated their determination and courage. The resistance movement
against China’s occupation has been continuously growing in that four-year span
and has reached a stage unknown since the 1950s. Intellectuals and artists who
had previously avoided taking a stand are now firmly on board, calls for
independence and the use of the Tibetan national flag have become more frequent
than ever, and acts of non-cooperation, embodied in the very inspiring Lhakar
movement [10], are increasingly carried out throughout Tibet. All over the
country a new sense of national identity is growing, new forms of resistance
are being invented; all over the country discontent is boiling. Such a
conjuncture occurs only rarely.
In such
circumstances, it is not hard to imagine that an official appeal by Dharamshala
to unite and engage in major non-violent actions would have a tremendous effect
in Tibet. Calling for a country-wide non-cooperation movement, for example,
would undoubtedly be hailed and, as much as conditions allow, embraced by the
majority of Tibetans living under Chinese domination. Such a step would also,
it is worth noting, confer solid legitimacy on the new leadership in exile
whose election was enthusiastically followed in Tibet and in whom Tibetans in
Tibet have still high hopes. However, once again I have to express my doubts
about the Tibetan Government-in-Exile’s willingness to lead the struggle. The
Middle Way Approach is not only a claim for autonomy, it has also proven to be
a call for non-action and surrender, and it has never served to provide
direction to Tibetans in Tibet (apart, maybe, from advocating collaboration
with the Chinese occupiers). Based on the prime minister’s statements and on
his fear of ruthless sanctions from China [11], Dharamshala will definitely not
encourage political protests in Tibet anytime soon.
But I am
convinced of one thing: without taking Tibetan resistance to a new level, there
is little chance that self-immolations and similar extreme actions will stop.
Going back to the prior status quo is not an option and Tibetans are now
approaching a point where there is no turning back. The “Tsampa Revolution”, as
coined by Jigme Ugen, is on the move. To quote lyrics by the British singer
Peter Gabriel, written after the death of Steven Biko in a South African jail:
“You can blow out a candle, but you cannot blow out a fire; once the flames
begin to catch, the wind will blow it higher." [12]
These
self-immolators are true freedom fighters, who use the ultimate form of
non-violent action — the most painful one — to free their country from
oppression. The minimum we ought to do is to view their sacrifices for what
they are, not for what our myopic approach wishes them to be. These men and
women are not desperate victims of China’s totalitarianism. They are not people
who gave in to Chinese might because they were “deprived of hope”. They are
sacrificing themselves for the benefit of their countrymen and women, and for
the restoration of a nation’s pride, because they know their actions can make a
difference. Because they are carrying the hope that Tibet will be free some
day. They are the beacons of a renewed struggle against China’s tyranny and an
inspiration for millions of Tibetans to unite and fight for their independence.
May the sacrifices of these Tibetan self-immolators mark the beginning of
Communist China’s downfall.
Christophe Besuchet is an art
director and a long-time activist in Tibet's independence movement. He is
currently the Vice President of Switzerland's Rangzen Alliance.
The views expressed in this piece are
that of the author and the publication of the piece on this website does not
necessarily reflect their endorsement by the website.
Notes
[1] Abigail Hauslohner, "Afghanistan: When Women Set Themselves on Fire", Time, 7 July 2010
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2002340,00.html
[2] Martin Patience , "Afghan women who turn to immolation", BBC, 19 March 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7942819.stm
[3] ༢༠༡༢ལོའི་བོད་ནང་གི་མེར་བསྲེགས་གནས་ཚུལ་ཐོག་མ། Tibet Times, 9 Jan 2012
http://www.tibettimes.net/news.php?cat=49&&id=5385
[4] Jamyang Norbu, "Remembering Thupten Ngodup", 12 May 2008
http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/05/12/remembering-thupten-ngodup/
[5] "‘No Regret’ For Loss: Mother", RFA, 18 Jan 2012
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/mother-01182012151811.html
[6] Ngawang Choephel, "Are we ignoring self-immolation?", 2 January 2012
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150452176846793
[7] Dr Lobsang Sangay, "Chinese repression to blame for immolations in Tibet", The Washington Post, 4 November 2011
http://bit.ly/vGyddB
[8] Vishal Arora, "World will regret its neglect of Tibet: Tibetan PM", IANS, 18 Jan 2012.
http://bit.ly/xprV5X
[9] "Statement by Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues Maria Otero", 24 January 2012
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/01/182424.htm
[10] http://lhakar.org/
[11] "Tibetan PM Discouraging Political Protest In Tibet?", Tibettruth.com, 2 Nov 2011
http://tibettruth.com/2011/11/02/tibetan-pm-discouraging-political-protest-in-tibet/
[12] Peter Gabriel - Biko (1987)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgM-1r0X5Zc
No comments:
Post a Comment