Satyagraha: ‘The Right Way”

For four decades now, under the noble guidance of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, we Tibetans have appealed constantly to Chinese government leaders to see reason and end the policy of racial and cultural annihilation of Tibet. His Holiness has accepted that overall sovereignty will rest with the Chinese government, provided that social, culture and religious freedom is restored and genuine autonomy is granted to the Tibetan people. However, the Chinese do not respond to our appeals. Instead, day after day their powerful propaganda machine hurls the choicest epithets of the communist vocabulary at us Tibetans and His Holiness in particular.

Where do we Tibetan go from here? How long can we wait for justice-forever? What is our dharma now? I feel strongly that hard decisions must now be made; but while considering our future course of action, we must continue to uphold our sacred Buddhist heritage of truth and non-violence. After much deliberation, I have concluded that recourse to the principle of satyagraha is the ethical way available to us. I shall elaborate this idea here.

The Concept of Satyagraha
Satya means ‘true’ and agraha means ‘insistence’-an action rooted in ahimsa or non-violence. Peaceful insistence on truth aims to eradicate an untruth or a wrong and to restore a norm emanating rom the principle of truth. Thus satyagraha means truthful non-violence action. It is an action springing from a spiritual motivation and does not rule out the possibility of compromise or negotiation based on the principles of truth and natural justice.

Truth
According to Buddhist teaching, truth has two categories: absolute truth and relative truth. Absolute truth is the ultimate reality of all existence which transcends duality and which is the source of all actions and creativity. Absolute truth cannot be the basis of satyagraha: at its level the aims and modes of satyagraha and the thought and behavior of the satyagrahi himself (one who takes truthful non-violence action) cannot be comprehended. Therefore, the basis for satyagraha is relative or conventional truth.

A satyagraha must properly verify the basis for satyagraha. This basis must be true according to eternal values and norms such as freedom, justice, equality and human dignity that emanate from truth. It must also be verifiable by others through common experience and logic. Then a satyagraha may initiate a satyagraha against forces that violate these eternal values and norms.

Non-Violence
Any action, cause of action or inherent to act that is born of hatred (dvesa) or greed (raga) and accompanied by a will to harm or that is indifferent to or uncaring towards others is violence. Even a tendency to violence before it has been expressed is violence. Violence can be direct, indirect or structural and can be expressed in many forms. An apparently harmless action is violent if born of hatred, greed or indifference to others welfare. Conversely, an action may seem harsh but if it is born of love and compassion and is free from harmful intention, its motivation is non violent. Non-violence is willing and active abstention from hatred and greed.

Agraha
The determination of a satyagrahi to achieve a just, obtainable and reasonable objective and an equally strong determination to refrain from violence and to be ready to undergo any amount of suffering, even death-this is the meaning of agraha. Therefore, it is important that before initiating a satyagraha, a satyagrahi should be sure that its objective is achievable. If the object of the satyagraha is the fulfillment of a demand, this demand must be reasonable and possible for the other party to grant. In view if the above an action cannot be satyagraha unless:

• It is based on an issue or question that accords with the full meaning of satyagraha and that can be verified by other;
• It is free from negative emotions such as hatred or greed;
• It is free from violence, direct or indirect, structural, physical, vocalor mental;
• It is born of love and compassion;
• It has objectives that are obtainable or relate to reasonable demands; and
• It steadfastly remains dedicated to the principles of truth and non-violence.

The reasonableness of a demand should be determined by debate. Because the side that opposes it will claim it is not reasonable, the demand must be verifiable by an agreed neutral third party.

The History of Satyagraha
The history of satyagraha is as old as its constituent concepts: sat and agraha defined above. I am particularly inspired by the satyagraha undertaken by Prince Siddhartha Gautama 2,500 years ago. He carefully examined the nature of suffering, the cause of that suffering, the possibility of cessation. His search culminated in sitting down under the bodhi tree determined to remain, come what may, until he found the cause of misery and the way for its cessation and has achieved enlightenment. He was willing to suffer any pain, even to perish, but he would not move from his seat until he has achieved his goal.

This determination was the truest kind of satyagraha because Prince Siddhartha’s resolve to achieve enlightenment did not come from negative emotions but from love of truth and compassion; has resolve arose not from selfish motives but from the desire to benefit all the sentient beings. As he sat under the bodhi tree he was challenged by powerful forces of opposition epitomized by the evil one, Mara. Although Mara employed utmost terror and temptation. Siddharta never wavered and his satyagraha continued without the slightest disturbance. When Mara challenged the truthfulness of his endeavour. Siddhartha touched the ground calmly; the earth testified in favour and the negative force of Mara disappeared. The following morning Siddhartha awoke as Buddha. I consider this to be the unparalleled example of Satyagraha.

The Buddhist Jatakas, Avandanas and also the Indian Puranic literature are replete with my mythological stories that exemplify satyagraha in various forms. The Puranic story of Prahlad is one of the most outstanding examples of satyagraha because he both remained non-violent and willingly took upon himself all kinds of torture and suffering in order not to forsake the true and just. In western history Socrates is an outstanding satyagrahi. He did not try to evade the death penalty and was willing to drink a cup of poison rather than yield a pressure he thought unjust. Jesus Christ was another outstanding satyagrahi who’s well known story I need not elaborate. In modern times the American writer Thoreau was a notable satyagrahi who carried out civil disobedience against a poll tax that supported a war and the slavery system. His example greatly inspired Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his civil disobedience movement in South Africa at the turn of the century.

The Origin of the Term ‘Satyagraha’
Peaceful resistance in general and satyagraha in particular have existed from time immemorial, but satyagraha as a modern term was first coined by Gandhi, later known an Mahatma Gandhi. Early this century Gandhi, unable to find a suitable word in his Gujrati mother tongue to describe his method of fighting injustice used the English ‘passive resistance’. Gradually, however, he realized that ‘passive resistance’ has a narrow meaning that could be interpret as a device of the weak. It also left room for hatred and could lead to violence. Unable to find a substitute, Gandhi held a competition for suggesting a suitable term for his movement that would avoid confusion with ‘passive resistance’. The competition was won by Magan Lal Gandhi, who suggested satagraha by joining the words sat and agraha. Gandhi amended it slightly by adding ‘ya’ in the middle and the new term satyagrha was born. Since then this word has become quite popular and has been adopted by a number of leaders of non-violence movements.

Gandhi translated satyagraha as ‘holding to the truth’ or ‘truth force’, and Professor Gene Sharp has called it ‘adherence to truth’ or ‘reliance on truth’. I prefer ‘insistence on truth’ because this is nearer to my understanding of the word. But here is Gandhi’s own explanation of the term: ‘Satyagraha’ is literarily holding on to truth and it means, therefore, known as soul force. It excludes the use of violence because man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth and, therefore, not competent to punish. Professor Sharp has beautifully summed up Gandhi’s definition of Satyagraha:

The believer in Satyagraha, a satyagrahi aims at attaining Truth through love and right actions. Satyagraha is a matter of principle. It was developed by Gandhi through his searchings and experiments in his personal life and his efforts at combating social evils and building a better social order. The satyagrahi seeks to ‘turn the searchlight inward’ and to improve his own life so that he does no harm to others. He seeks to combat evil in the world through his own way of living, constructive work, and resistance and action against what are regarded as evils. He seeks to convert the opponent through sympathy, patience, truthfulness and self suffering. He believes that sufficient truthfulness, fearlessness and self-suffering. He believes that sufficient truthfulness, fearlessness, and deep conviction will enable him to attack that which he regards as evil, regardless of the odds against him. He will not compromise on basic moral issues, though he may on secondary matters.

Peaceful Resistance vis-à-vis Satyagraha
There have been numerous examples in history of peaceful resistance and non-violent struggle for various causes. But unarmed civil resistance is not necessarily non-violent; nor is all non-violent resistance necessarily satyagraha. Five kinds of principled non-violent have been discussed in Professor Sharp’s research: active reconciliation, moral resistance, selected non-violence, non-violent revolution and satyagraha. Satyagraha stands alone, quite distinct from the other kinds.

In my opinion a non-violent action is not satyagraha if it arises from conflict between racial, religious, socio-economic or ethnic groups or is motivated by hatred, jealousy and anger, as in a desire for revenge or compensatory justice. Therefore, modern concepts of nationalism or regionalist aspiration cannot form the basis for satyagraha. Similarly, various other non-violent social and political movement, when examined carefully, fail to satisfy the criteria for satyagraha.

To prepare a true satyagrahi is the most difficult of tasks. Even Mahatma Gandhi, produced only a limited number of well qualified satyagrahis. Their quality, not number, was important because it was these few who inspired mass support. As he wrote in Young India: ‘In every great cause it is not the number of fighters that counts but it is the quality of which they are made that becomes the deciding factors. The greatest man of the world have always stood alone. ‘A satyagrahi should be fair, law abiding, straight forward, fearless and ready to suffer and sacrifice. In this connection Gandhi said: ‘A Satyagrahi bids good-bye to fear. He is, therefore, never afraid of trusting the opponent. Even if the opponent plays his false twenty times, the satyagrahi is ready to trust him the twenty first time, for an implicit trust in human natureis the very essence of his creed. ‘on another occasion he remarked: ‘A Satyagrahi is nothing if not instinctively law-abiding and it is law-abiding nature that which exacts from him implicit obedience to the highest law, which is the voice of conscience which overrides all other laws.’

It is , therefore, very difficult to make satyagraha a mass movement. It will have to be carried out by a limited number of satyagrahis. The masses can be mobilized only in support of a satyagraha. A careful distinction between ordinary peaceful movements, a movement in support of satyagraha and the satyagraha itself helps one to understand things more clearly.

Satyagraha in the Tibetan Context
In order to understand in the Tibetan context our proposal for the initiation of satyagraha, the basic nature of Tibet’s struggle must be grasped.

Many people think the Tibetan struggle is basically between political ideologies, i.e communism and liberalism. Certain individuals may think this, but to me it is very clear that our struggle is not one of political ideologies. It is for the people of Tibet to consider and decide with their free will what kind of political system they should adopt for their own welfare. A Tibetan satyagrahi need not oppose or support any political ideology, although each satyagrahi may have his or her preference for a political philosophy. The basis for satyagraha may not be a political ideology. Our commitment to democracy need not serve as a basis of satyagraha for the freedom of Tibet.

The Tibetan struggle is not an ethnic clash, although ethnic discrimination has been very widely and intensively practiced by the Chinese rulers in Tibet. A satyagrahi does not oppose the Chinese as a race or any other ethnic group because a true satyagrahi has a clear perception of the equality of all sentient beings. Apart from this, China and Tibet are neighbors and will always remain so. Thus the Chinese people are especially the subject of our love and compassion. Moreover, for most of the past thousand years the Chinese and the Tibetans have had cordial relations, and under the priest-patron relationship much of the spiritual needs of the Chinese were met largely by Tibetan teachers. Tibet in turn benefited from Chinese material support.

The Tibetan struggle is not for political power or sovereignty. The ‘middle path’ approach of His Holiness aims only to have an optimal degree of freedom and to provide a congenial environment so that the Tibetan people can properly preserve their unique culture and spiritual heritage. This heritage, which they have assiduously nursed for the past thousand years, is of immense value not only to the Tibetan people but also to the whole world, indeed to all sentient beings. Its preservation is the sacred duty of the Tibetan people and is our inherited responsibility towards the entire universe.

Our struggle is to restore the freedom and congenial environment that were destroyed as a result of the illegal occupation of Tibet by Chinese forces. We do not mind remaining under Chinese sovereignty, provided freedom is restored to us and a congenial social and culture atmosphere is created in which we can lead our own way of life, we cannot rule out that the Tibetans will struggle for complete political independence. Even then, political independence will only be a means to our ultimate goal, which is to fulfill our universal responsibility noted above.

The present situation in Tibet is not an isolated problem faced by the Tibetans alone. It is symptomatic of a more pervasive human problem, and must be understood from that angle. The human mind has been unable to evolve beyond its narrow confines and has yet to perceive the equality of all sentient beings. This has resulted in the perpetuation of oppression and domination within human groups and in the violation of all civilized norms of social, legal and moral conduct. What else can account for all the atrocities committed in the twentieth century in the name of ‘progress’, ‘welfare’, ‘socialism’, ‘democracy’ and ‘equality’. Therefore, a true satyagrahi will have to take into account the fundamental human condition. He must have compassion in his heart before he plunges into action. This means that a satyagraha should not have any hatred for the Chinese people and particularly for the Chinese rulers. A satyagrahi should love them as human beings and should have immense compassion for them, as they are ignorant poor beings who are accumulating negative deeds that will ultimately bring them misfortune and suffering.

A Tibetan satyagrahi should oppose the crimes, atrocities and injustices against humanity in general, wherever they are committed. At the same time his immediate field of action will naturally be determined by the particularly of the wrongful acts committed by the Chinese in Tibet. In a way he implements the proverb ‘Think globally but act locally’.

Although I have been greatly inspired and influenced by Gandhi, I cannot claim that Tibet’s experiment with satyagraha will be consonant with the Gandhian model. There are fundamental reasons for this. Gandhi’s writing are vast. I have read a very few of them and my ignorance of his thought and action is immense. Therefore I cannot say that I am following him closely. There is also a philosophical barrier between Gandhi and me. Gandhi was staunch Hindu who believed in God as the creator. All my actions and thoughts arise from the Buddhist perception. As such there is naturally a basic perceptional difference between the Mahatma and me. But he was a true religious person and there is much common ground between us, particularly regarding the moral and ethical basis of all action. I also fully agree with him when he says that both ends and means should be pure. Some modern scholars are trying to establish Gandhi as a great political strategist and argue that he used satyagraha as a strategy. If this be true, then there is difference between us. Very importantly, the situation in Tibet today is quite different from that in India in Gandhi’s time. I would never wish to use satyagraha strategically.

Gandhi was fighting against British rulers who numerical presence in India was insignificant. By and large the British were liberal in outlook and at home they had an old and stable parliamentary democratic system and a considerably independent judiciary. They had strong faith in the rule of law. We Tibetans, however, are up against the Chinese communist totalitarian system which does not have democracy, an independent judiciary or the rule of law. The Chinese rulers do not care for international public opinion. Moreover, unlike the British in India, there are more Chinese in Tibet than the Tibetan people themselves. This demographic invasion has reduced the Tibetans to an ethnic minority within the forty years of Chinese rule. Under such circumstance many observers think that a satyagraha movement initiated by a few people in Tibet would be a suicide attempt.

Every man is responsible for himself; his destiny lies in his own hands. The Buddhist teaching of causality, or interdependent origination gives us the hope and strength to stand up against malice, falsehood and injustice, even when the force of evil appears to be strong and pervasive. Strength does not lie in the size of population or in the richness of material resources. Strength lies in truthfulness, justice and fairness, otherwise moral and ethical values could never be established. The principle of ‘might is right’ can never be the basis of a society or civilization. This belief is one of the important reasons for initiating our experiment with satyagraha.

Further, my concept of satyagraha is not result-orientated but is rather the fulfillment of responsibility. The people of Tibet themselves contributed to a large extent to the causes of their present predicament. They were not able to develop themselves sufficiently in the perfection of truthfulness and non-violence. That was the only real reason why the Chinese could occupy and torture the Tibetans so easily. As our own moral and ethical weakness is the basic cause of our suffering today, a fundamental objective of the proposed experiment in satyagraha is self purification.

The second basic objective of our satyagraha is to express total rejection of China’s stand and to oppose the Chinese in Tibet. China’s occupation of Tibet and treatment of its land, environment and people are unjust and violent. We suffer at the hands of the Chinese rulers and witness their unjust actions. If we do not express our disapproval and opposition to them with love and compassion, we shall become party to those actions. Similarly, if a crime is committed in our presence and we remain silent and do not register opposition to it, it would count as our approval of the crime.

In brief the main purpose of the proposed satyagraha are:
• To purify ourselves and to eliminate the causes responsible for the present situation in Tibet;
• To develop among ourselves a truthful and compassionate outlook;
• To express our clear opposition to China’s illegal occupation of Tibet and inhuman treatment of its people, through which we also express our opposition to all other unjust actions in the world.

If we can achieve these objectives, the aims of the satyagraha will be fulfilled to a great extent.

Bases of the Proposed Satyagraha
There are 11 true bases from which to launch a satyagraha:
1. Tibet is spiritual land. It is the repository of a great sacred tradition. The Tibetan people are the fortunate inheritors of that tradition.

2. Tibet enjoyed complete independence for most of the time from its earliest days until 1951.

3. The Chinese communist military invasion of 1950 and the subsequent forceful colonization of Tibet violate international law.

4. According to the international law, the Seventeen Point Agreement that Tibet was forced to sign under intense duress is not valid. The Chinese themselves have failed to adhere to a single point of the so-called agreement and thereby have effectively annulled it. Therefore, the Seventeen Point Agreement should not be considered a valid document or used as evidence to claim that Tibet is part of China.

5. During the forty years of China’s occupation of our country, we Tibetans have been deprived of our human rights. The religious and cultural traditions of Tibet have been systematically destroyed; Tibet’s economy has been exploited; the Tibetan people have faced unprecedented oppression, torture and brutality; the Tibetan people have been reduced to a minority in their own land due to deliberate policy of massive transfer of Chinese into Tibet; a deliberate attempt has been made to destroy our very identity; and Tibet’s physical environment has been severely damaged. As a result, the Tibetan people have undergone immeasurable suffering. All avenues for regaining independence have been systematically blocked. In brief, the condition of Tibet and the Tibetans is not only extremely tragic but also utterly intolerable.

6. The vast majority of the Tibetan people neither recognize not accept the Chinese occupation and fervently yearn to restore Tibet’s independence.

7. Tibet is not a part of China. Neither the Tibetan head of the state nor the Tibetan people themselves have ever legitimately agreed to accede to China. A movement to free from illegal Chinese rule is in no way to threat to China’s territorial integrity.

8. We Tibetans are unique people with our own distinct physical characteristics, language, custom, dress and social, political and cultural traditions. Hence, the Tibetan people have the right to self determination. This right has been clearly affirmed in communications by important international bodies. The United Nation resolution of 1961 and 1965; the Verdict of the Permanent Tribunal of People Session of Tibet (Strasbourg,1992); the proceedings of the session on Issues Relating to Self Determination and Independence for Tibet of the Conference of International Lawyers (London,1993); the Statement of Action of the Conference of European Parliamentarians (London,1993); and the New Delhi Declaration of the World Parliamentarians Convention on Tibet (New Delhi,1994). The findings based on solid historical evidence by many independent scholars have also affirmed that we Tibetans meet all of the definitions of a distinctive people, according to international law, and have the right to self-determination.

9. The Tibetan people have a sacred and bounded responsibility to themselves and to the world to protect, maintain and disseminate their unique spiritual tradition, moral norms and inner science.

10. This responsibility cannot be carried out properly if freedom is not restored to the Tibetan people.

11. Hence, the restoration of Tibet’s freedom is the duty of every Tibetan.

The above mentioned aspects of reality are not hypothetical; nor should they be taken as a form of political propaganda. Rather, they can be confirmed by oneself or through indisputable evidence. As aspects of truth, they cannot be erased or rendered untrue by irrational arguments and illegitimate force. Truth can never be erased. The Chinese continue to occupy Tibet with uter disregard for truth, and the fact that they can do so stems either from out lack of faith in the truth of the aforementioned aspects of reality or from our lack of courage.

The Satyagrahis: Practitioners of Truth
However sublime, logical and appealing satyagraha may be, its real test is its practice. How far its practioners adhere to its basic principles and how they give shape to their convictions is a matter of the greatest importance. This brings us to question of the qualification and training of these practitioners, the satyagrahis. I shall enumerate the essential qualities that prospective satyagrahis should cultivate and the guidelines that they should follow.

1. Through unshakable faith and confidence in truth and in the non-violent path of peace, a satyagrahi must develop and maintain proper ethical conduct, for example never speaking falsehoods or harming others. Prospective satyagrahis must maintain the required ethical conduct for atleast 3 months before formally joining the satyagraha.

2. A satyagrahi must not have anger, hatred or ill feeling towards the Chinese and their supporters. There should be no intention to harm government officials and workers of communist China or anyone siding with them or to harm or destroy public property.

3. When engaged in satyagraha, one must have the courage never to respond to violence with violence or to use violence to protect oneself, even when facing punishment such as beating, torture or imprisonment. One must always be ready to face death at the hands of a tormentor.

4. When undertaking satyagraha to restore freedom to Tibet, one should not consider it as a political movement, a movement to gain benefits or a campaign to hurt the Chinese. One must believe that one is engaged in a spiritually motivated mission to restore freedom to Tibet for the highest purpose in human life; the wellbeing of all sentient beings.

5. While participating in the movement, one should not expect to gain fame or glory, political or economic benefits or public recognition of one’s accomplishments.

6. One should never advertise one’s contribution to the cause of Tibet or expect to receive any credit, because one has already abandoned such notions. Even after success in gaining Tibet’s freedom, one must not expect any political position, social status, financial gain or other material benefit for oneself or one’s relations.

7. A satyagrahi must lead a simple life. In all matters such as clothing, lodging and furnishings, he must lead a life free from extremes. He must avoid unethical ways of making a living and have little desire for wealth.

8. One must never participate in anything, public or private, that is dishonest.

9. If one has dependents such a children or aged parents, one must obtain their permission for involvement in a satyagraha and arrange for their care while one is absent.

10. One must have no outstanding loans, accounts to be settled, liabilities or other responsibilities.

11. One must never break one’s vow of truth and non-violence, even at the cost of one’s life.

12. One must not transgress the rules of conduct made legitimately and put into practice by the leaders of the satyagraha movement.

I have tried to present briefly my views on the proposed satyagraha. I hope they will help people to understand the need for it and its importance in the Tibetan context. I am sure sympathetic minds will respond to my proposals in a constructive way. I hope further that the proposal for satyagraha will not be construed as a call to undertake an impracticable task or a desperate step. It has been made only after long deliberation backed by experience and by observation of the actual situation.

Finally, a note of caution; in the present conditions, undertaking a satyagraha is a path of suffering, self-denial, fearlessness, humility and, above all, non-violence and compassion. Treading such a thorny path will require great determination and preparation.