Interview with Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche
\nPrime Minister of the Tibetan government in exile
\nDharamsala, November 23, 2003<\/p>\n
We met Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, the new Kalon Tripa or \u00a0Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government in Exile in his Office of the Kashag [Cabinet] in Dharamsala. Following an old wish of His \u00a0Holiness the Dalai Lama to democratize the Tibetan society and after nearly 30 years of efforts and several intermediary steps, the head of the executive branch of the government has been recently elected by direct suffrage. It was the first time in Tibetan history. Though \u00a0the Oracle has recently predicted a new earthquake in the Himalayan region, a great peace pervades the premises of the Central Tibetan Administration at the end of this afternoon in\u00a0We met Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, the new Kalon Tripa or Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government in Exile in his Office of the Kashag [Cabinet] in Dharamsala. Following an old wish of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to democratize the Tibetan society and after nearly 30 years of efforts and several intermediary steps, the head of the executive branch of the government has been recently elected by direct suffrage. It was the first time in Tibetan history. Though the Oracle has recently predicted a new earthquake in the Himalayan region, a great peace pervades the premises of the Central Tibetan Administration at the end of this afternoon in<\/p>\n
Claude: My first question is: how would you like to be addressed:\u00a0Mr. Prime Minister [your secular designation] or Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche [your religious title].<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: Samdhong Rinpoche is fine.<\/p>\n Claude: The meaning of my question is what is more important for you: to be the Prime of Tibet or a monk?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: A monk!<\/p>\n Claude: After your election, in your letter of acceptance, you mentioned that your vows are more important than your present post.<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: If my duties [as Prime Minister] come in \u00a0conflict with my vows, I do not think that I will leave the monkhood, I will certainly leave the prime ministership.<\/p>\n Claude: Tibet has been for more than 2100 years a theocracy, today Tibet (at least in exile) has become a full-fledged democracy. Do you feel that Tibet as nation has taken an irrevocable step in electing you as the Prime Minister through a direct suffrage? <\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: I am unable to say if it was a fortunate or unfortunate step. Sometimes, I feel that it is unfortunate because when we were free, we were together in Tibet and we were not able to democratize our society. We were not able to move with the times and take our own responsibility by electing our leaders. Therefore the nation became weak, particularly during the times between successive Dalai Lamas. There is usually a 20\/25 years gap between the death of a Dalai Lama and the majority of his reincarnation. During these periods, there was a leadership vacuum in Tibet. Nobody thought of\u00a0democratization. In that way, it came too late. On the other hand, we are passing through a great crisis; the nation is occupied by foreign forces. The handful of people living outside [Tibet] have numerous problems. The younger generation which is born and brought up outside Tibet has no idea of what Tibet is and what Tibet was. The youth have a sense of patriotism only because they have heard about Tibet through their parents. Yet, they cannot feel the land, the country and the people. It is a very critical and difficult juncture. At such a moment, the people have shown an unprecedented faith in me. In this way, I can say that it is a fortunate thing. I feel happy to be able to serve the people, our nation and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, not in good days, but in days of crisis. For me, it is perhaps more important.<\/p>\n Claude: Do you feel than an enlightened theocracy (with the most enlightened person leading the country) is superior to a democratic system?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: I sometimes use one word before \u2018democracy\u2019, that is \u2018genuine\u2019. In all of my writings, you will find that I always speak about \u2018Truth, Non-violence and Genuine Democracy\u2019 as my guiding principles. Democracy has two levels: one is the democracy as it is practiced in India and everywhere else in the world: particularly the multi-democratic system which is nothing else than a competition of groups. In an ordinary democratic system, if I had got Claude: The Regency in the case of Tibet?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: Yes, regency was not good for the Tibetan\u00a0people. Secondly, enlightened kings or dictators might serve people very well and protect the interests of the people, but there is also another demerit: people become lazy, they are no more able to take responsibilities for themselves. They feel that everything will be done for them by the enlightened leader or dictator and they just remain idle. This makes people and nation weak. Therefore, people\u2019s participation and people taking responsibility in the nation\u2019s affairs is more important. Participation is absent in a dictatorship.<\/p>\n Claude: What are your main objectives as a Prime Minister not recognized so far by any nations?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: My main objectives are two: the first one is to have a breakthrough in the deadlock that we are facing at this moment between the Chinese leadership and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Since 1994, we lost the connection and since then we are not able to restart a dialogue. Dialogue is the only way through which the Tibetan problem can be addressed and solved. The emphasis of the policy of the present Kashag [Tibetan Cabinet] is to achieve a breakthrough in this deadlock. For this, we are using all possible\u00a0\u2018genuine\u2019 means which can be employed: international campaign, good offices of various nations through their bilateral discussions and dialogue with China, people to people contacts, so on and so forth. This is my first objective. The second objective is to improve and bring a lot of change in the administration of the Tibetans in exile: namely the Central Administration and the administration of the various settlements. For this matter, education is the top most priority. We are getting a good education for the Tibetan children, but we are not yet satisfied with this system. A fundamental change in the education system should be brought about. This is my first priority. Then, I want to make the Tibetan settlements sustainable, eco-friendly and cohesive communities in harmony with the nature and between the people.<\/p>\n Claude: Some people feel that the monasteries are becoming too rich. What is your opinion?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: Yes that is also my view. Though, they may not be very rich from the viewpoint of the number of monks and the money they receive, if you divide the money received by the number of monks, they may not be very rich. But apparently, they look very rich, they are building unnecessary luxurious temples and halls, this is a matter of great concern to me. At the same time, the health conditions of the monks, their education and research facilities are not being given top priority. Building huge houses or constructing huge statues receives more priority. I don\u2019t think that the Tibetan government in exile will be able to change this substantially, but I am talking about it quite loudly and we shall try to do something.<\/p>\n \n Claude: About the negotiations: what is the framework of the negotiations?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: The framework is very clear. His Holiness made it crystal clear in 1988 in his Strasbourg Proposal. There is not a big difference between the Chinese and His Holiness\u2019 position. His Holiness said that the entire Tibet territory which means the traditional three regions which are at present divided into 6 pieces should be reunited (the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region is only half of it). His demand is \u201clet it be joined together\u201d. All the Tibetan speaking people, the Tibetan ethnic group should form a single entity.<\/p>\n Claude: You do not include Monpas [from Tawang \u2013 Arunachal Pradesh] or Ladhakis?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: No, they are entirely different. I am speaking about the Tibetans under Chinese occupation, these Tibetans should be combined under one state or one region whatever it might be called. For this region, autonomy should be granted as China has promised and practiced in Hong Kong or Macao which have a democratic system. \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d is an accepted formula. Similarly Tibet should have a separate basic law based on a genuine democratic system. Within that basic law, Tibetans could govern themselves and look after their religious, cultural, economic affairs as well as education and health. The Central government of China could look after the external affairs and until Tibet is declared a \u2018Zone of Ahimsa\u2019, the defense can be taken care of by Central government. These are our parameter and of course, we will ask them not to change the demographic situation, not to shift Chinese population into Tibet. These are our few demands. China theoretically accepts territorial autonomy in its constitution and also accepts that a democratic system can be adopted by a portion of China. If it is granted, Tibetans can willingly accept to be part of China.<\/p>\n Claude: Do you see any role for India? India had a treaty agreement with Tibet signed at the Simla Convention in 1914 and ratified in\u00a01947\/48. What role do you see for India in solving the dispute with China? <\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: India has a very important role. Even without looking at the legal aspect: the Treaty between India and Tibet and the historical relations, even in today\u2019s situation, India is the most appropriate country which should plead with China for negotiations with His Holiness. Tibetan refugees are in India, His Holiness is in India and India has a [border] dispute with Chi na because of Tibet. Otherwise India has no border with China. If the Tibetan issue is solved, the Sino-Indian relationship can be stabilized and improved and the border issue can be resolved. Many things can be done and India would benefit in her trade relations with Tibet as she used before 1959. Therefore India should come forward and take the leading role [in the negotiations] between China and His Holiness.<\/p>\n Claude: Recently the Chinese\u2019s propaganda linked Kashmir, Sinkiang and Tibet. How would you respond to this propaganda?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: They tried to take advantage of the American problem. The US were looking for support to oppose terrorism. At that time, China told the Americans that they should help China to fight terrorism in Tibet and Xinjiang. This is quite obviously an unacceptable proposition. In Xinjiang, there has been a kind of armed resistance, but it has been sporadic. As far as Tibet is concerned, there is no violent resistance for the past 36 years. Everybody knows this. China also clubbed Taiwan as a terrorist state; China tried to make \u2018separatism\u2019 and \u2018terrorism\u2019, synonyms. This has not been accepted by anyone. After a few days, China has stopped repeating this argument; they must have realized that it is not a good propaganda.<\/p>\n Claude: You are one of the most well known proponents of nonviolence\u00a0in India? Do you think that non-violence can solve all\u00a0problems?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: Yes! I think that non-violence can solve allproblems provided that people really believe i n it and practice it\u00a0properly. Many people today see non-violence as a better alternative. I\u00a0do not agree to that. Non-violence is not an alternative, it is the only\u00a0way. There is no other alternative, all the violent ways can seemingly\u00a0solve the problems in a temporary manner, but it cannot eradicate the\u00a0root cause of problems. The root cause of problems is hatred. Today,\u00a0all the problems come out of hatred. This element can never been\u00a0eliminated by violence. If there is fire, we have to find something\u00a0opposite to the nature of fire to extinguish it. If in order to extinguish\u00a0fire, you put more fuel or more oxygen, it will never stop the fire; it\u00a0will increase the fire. Maybe for some time, the fire will subside but it\u00a0will rise again. People think that terrorism is terrible, of course,\u00a0terrorism is terrible, the incident which took place on September 11, in\u00a0Washington and New York, is a very very bad action and whomever\u00a0has committed it should be condemned with full force. At the same\u00a0time, to take revenge is not good. If anybody wants to take revenge,\u00a0the proper way is to react with compassion and in a non-violent\u00a0manner. That way alone the root cause which makes people terrorists,\u00a0could be eradicated. But they have very immaturely reacted with\u00a0violence, with a lot of violence and then of course, this violence has\u00a0created a lot of resentment and anger in the mind of many people. You\u00a0cannot kill all the people; these people will try again to take revenge.\u00a0As they are not able to fight with military force, they will commit again\u00a0the same type of actions here or there. This type of terrorist acts can\u00a0never come to an end by reacting to it through violence. India has\u00a0been experiencing it for more than twenty years, in the Punjab, in\u00a0Nagaland and now in the Kashmir. They have always tried to suppress\u00a0it by force, through military or police action, but it has never subsided.<\/p>\n Claude: According to you they cannot be a \u2018just\u2019 violence?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: No, violence cannot be just. But defined\u00a0in a different way, to cause injury or pain to other people, may not\u00a0be necessarily be violence. For example, if a person is killed for the\u00a0benefit of the killed person, for the real benefit of the killed person.\u00a0In this case, although there is an act of killing, it is not considered\u00a0as an act of violence.<\/p>\n Claude: Is it similar to the story when during one of his previous\u00a0incarnations the Buddha killed a robber in a boat when the robber\u00a0was going to make the boat sink and kill 500 people?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: Yes, Yes. He killed one of the robbers to\u00a0save people lives and also to save that person to commit a crime and\u00a0for that the Bodhisattva sacrificed himself for the sake of the robber.\u00a0This kind of act is an exception. It is not considered as a violent act,\u00a0but it is very difficult because the mature compassionate people are\u00a0difficult to find these days. Otherwise, harming others, with the\u00a0intention of harming others, out of anger or out of revenge, out of\u00a0hatred, cannot be justified. How can it be justified?<\/p>\n Claude: You do not believe in self-defense?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: No, I do not believe in self-defense. Of\u00a0course, there can be different ways of self-defense: you can run\u00a0away, you can hide. These are acceptable self-defense. But fighting\u00a0back is not acceptable.<\/p>\n Claude: In the past Buddhist monks like Bodhidharma went to\u00a0China and practiced martial arts in self-defense?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: In these arts, you try to avoid the blows\u00a0and also you do not try to kill the killer. This is the basic beauty of the\u00a0martial arts. You put somebody unconscious for some time, but the\u00a0practitioner of martial arts never kills the person.<\/p>\n Claude: What about a case like Kargil when a state like India is\u00a0attacked. I believe that Mahatma Gandhi when he was told that the\u00a0raiders were invading India in October 1947, said India should be\u00a0defended by force.<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: I did not find that kind of statement in\u00a0Gandhi\u2019s works, but I heard this quotation earlier. However, Gandhi\u00a0said that if he had to choose between cowardliness and violence, he\u00a0would choose violence. I do not think that Gandhi approved or even\u00a0appreciated the military actions in Kashmir. I cannot say definitively,\u00a0but it is my doubt. I do not think that Gandhi could have put it that\u00a0way. If Gandhi had been asked, he might have said to resort to a nonviolent Claude: India has a long tradition of a separate group of people [the\u00a0Kshatriyas] defending the Dharma. Do you have something similar in\u00a0Buddhism?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: No, we have no similar tradition. Defense of\u00a0the Dharma can only be done through dharmic practices. What is\u00a0Dharma? Dharma is Agama [the Canon] and Adigama [the Claude: Do you consider that the destruction of the great viharas by\u00a0the Muslim invaders and the disappearance of Buddhism in India in\u00a0the 10\/12th\u00a0century AD is due to the fact that Buddhism was not\u00a0practiced as it should have been?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: That is right!<\/p>\n Claude: You mentioned about Indian freedom struggle and the fact\u00a0that non-violence succeeded in throwing the British out of India,\u00a0but the British were gentlemen, it is not the case of the Chinese<\/strong> Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: Of course the situation is entirely different,\u00a0British are law-abiding people, they follow the rule of law, they believe\u00a0in democracy and they care for public opinion. Even if they have to do\u00a0something unjust, they would do it through apparently just means.\u00a0They would not kill anyone without a proper trial. The state might\u00a0influence the judge to give a favorable judgment, it is another matter,\u00a0but they go through a legal process. Population-wise, the British were\u00a0very few in India. In this case it was easier for Gandhi to use nonviolent\u00a0means. It would be entirely different in Tibet or in China for\u00a0that matter. China does not believe in the rule of law, China does not\u00a0believe in public opinion, human rights, etc. They can crush anything\u00a0which may come in their way. But the question is the priority and the\u00a0power of non-violence. If you are non-violent, you are really genuine\u00a0and your compassionate mind is pure and matured, which means not\u00a0contaminated by any impure things. Then the non-violent action\u00a0should be effective in any situation. One cannot consider non-violence\u00a0in terms of getting more effective with gentle and weak opponents,\u00a0and less effective with ruthless opponents. If non-violence action\u00a0methods have really a value and stand, then it should be equal with\u00a0every opponent. The opponent is not the determining factor. The\u00a0purity and genuineness of the non-violent action is the determining\u00a0factor. This is my view.<\/p>\n Claude: Now, about the future of Tibet. You have written a very\u00a0beautiful booklet about the future of Tibet. You write that you would\u00a0like Tibet to be a very special society, based on Buddhist precept\u00a0where for example there will be no circulation of money. Could tell us\u00a0a few words about your vision of future Tibet?<\/strong><\/p>\n Ven. Samdhong Rinpoche: The future society that I looking forward to\u00a0is a non-violent society. To make a non-violent society, the economic\u00a0system should be entirely different. If there a consumerist economic\u00a0system, the society cannot be non-violent. I look forward to a nonviolent Claude: Thank you very much, Prof Samdhong Rinpoche!<\/p>\n \n \n \n <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Interview with Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche Prime Minister of the Tibetan government in exile Dharamsala, November 23, 2003 We met Ven. Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, the new Kalon Tripa or \u00a0Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government in Exile in his Office of the Kashag [Cabinet] in Dharamsala. Following an old wish …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-interviews"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=262"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":263,"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262\/revisions\/263"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/samdhongrinpoche.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n51% of votes, I could consider that I won the elections. But I will govern only on behalf of these 51%. The other one is a \u2018genuine democracy\u2019 which, in my opinion, should be characterized by the cessation of the division between the ruler and the ruled. In our case, I got almost 85%; it is quite close to consensus\u00a0and that too without publicizing, without campaigning. People were left to act on their own. That is quite a genuine expression. I think that it is better than an enlightened dictatorship which might be good for a specific time, but is always followed by a dark period or a vacuum.<\/p>\n
\ndefense or satyagraha or taken his followers to the Kashmir\u00a0border.\u00a0I do not think that he was approached by anyone at that time.\u00a0Anyway, he had nothing to do with the government at that moment.\u00a0Even if Gandhi had said that Kashmir should be defended militarily, his\u00a0intention might have been different. During the World War II, Gandhi\u00a0was less mature at that time, he contributed to the war fund. It\u00a0appears to me that Gandhi did not oppose the World War II. I\u00a0therefore conclude that Gandhi\u2019s knowledge of non-violence had not\u00a0completely matured. He was in a stage of learning and in the later\u00a0stages, he never recommended violence or thought that violence can\u00a0be justified.<\/p>\n
\nUnderstanding of Canon]. The recitation and understanding of Canon\u00a0can never be threatened by outside force. Similarly it cannot be\u00a0protected by force or weapon.<\/p>\n
\nwho can be ruthless.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nsociety in which the education system and the economic\u00a0system need to be entirely different from the one existing in the rest\u00a0of the world. If we could have that, then a non-violent society could be\u00a0established.<\/p>\n