What might a Buddhist response on Tibetan self-immolations look like? Part 1

Some time back in the 70s, the National Lampoon ran a cover with a man's hand pointing a loaded gun to a dog, with the caption "If you don't buy this magazine we'll shoot this dog."

Although admittedly in questionable taste, what made the cover funny was the utter absurdity of the situation- as though we might believe that someone would shoot a dog if we didn't buy the magazine.

And although it might be seen as in bad taste, that's the metaphor that went through my mind as I started to write on this topic. And it might be inappropriate because the difference between a "suicide for political cause" and a garden variety suicide (if there can be such a thing) might not be that big a difference. 

On the other hand, I think the idea of a web-site more-or-less promoting the "martyrdom" of self-immolating Buddhist monks in Tibet is in equally bad taste, especially when you consider that  the difference between a "suicide for political cause" and a garden variety suicide (if there can be such a thing) might not be that big a difference. It might be that the self-immolating Buddhist monks have a strong viewpoint and feel driven to their actions.   On the other hand, I do kind of get this feeling: "If you, Mr. Chinese Guard, don't give us a Free Tibet^® the monk gets it!"  

But does it follow that a) "the Chinese" are "at fault" here, and b) is there a more effective, ethical response possible?

First, "the Chinese" are a very diverse bunch of people; they are the one of the oldest continuing national entities composed of a multitude of ethnic groups.  True, they're 95% Han Chinese, but they comprise many minorities within them, with varying degrees of tranquility to be honest.  But one thing that's the case, most Chinese, except those that openly challenge the government do not feel repressed per se.  There are definite problems with the Chinese government, and they're not unlike the problems in the US - corruption, concentration of wealth, etc.  But the idea that, for example a group of Han Chinese might be (forcibly) "relocated" to Tibet - except for armed forces - is ridiculous.  The real answer is quite simple:  As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money."

Secondly, suppose much of what we've read about Tibet is true.  I say "much" because it is certainly true that at least some of what the Free Tibet^® crowd is saying is demonstrably false.  But I want to examine what the proper response is.

First, suppose that the Chinese are administering Tibet as though anyone of Chinese descent might move there, regardless of ethnic background.

 So what?

That alone shouldn't be cause to advocate to destabilize a political entity; if on the other hand you had a situation like Palestine, where the Palestinians were being denied basic services and rights, that would be a problem.

But what about the Dalai Lama? Nobody can carry pictures of the Dalai Lama! What a violation!

I have been to China quite a few times.   You know, you can talk about the Dalai Lama in China.   Of course, in the Chinese point of view a) China is a multiethnic state (which it is, whether folks in the West like it or not), and b) the Dalai Lama is kind of like Jefferson Davis or Huey Newton on the lam.  Governmental entities enjoy the supremacy of political power in their domains, in all senses of the word "enjoy."  Some might be worse than others, but this is a fact.  And because of that it means that the Dalai Lama is a challenge to the supremacy of the rule of law by the government of the People's Republic of China, and they will behave accordingly, just as the US government is over-stepping its boundaries with Wikileaks phenomena.  And just as I might add, the Dalai Lama is doing with his pretense of authority in Tibet (it being a pretense because he actually doesn't exercise authority in Tibet - and that's a fact.)

Now,  what would the response to outright oppression -again taking for granted that oppression indeed exists somehow - be from a Buddhist standpoint?  We in the West have been captivated by Gandhi and Martin Luther King and thanks to Thich Nhat Hanh, the Buddhist monk in Vietnam who self-immolated, but it seems to me that some input  from 功夫 might be in order here, or at least Sun Tzu.  I mean, after all, did the Buddhist monk in Vietnam who burnt himself achieve his objectives?

No, no he did not.  It took the NVA and the Vietcong to achieve their objectives, which weren't necessarily the monk's objectives.

I don't think violence on any side is the answer in Tibet, and I think the current immolations can't simply be put as the responsibility of the Chinese.  I'll explore the notion of more skillful responses later, but for now I will just say that such notions of action  would not aim to deprive people of loved ones as a necessary condition of their execution.  And I'll also say that I find the Dalai Lama's reticence to articulate what I see as a more  skillful response to this situation is troubling.

And needless to say, I find it also troubling that there are folks who call themselves Western Buddhists who aren't engaging in particularly effective means here, to say the least.