SATYAGRAHA
Speech of Professor Samdhong Rinpoche It is a difficult task for me to brief you about Satyagraha because of
three reasons: First, Satyagraha is a very vast subject that cannot be
dealt with in 15 minutes. Second, I have not prepared my presentation
in writing, so I cannot sum up things easily. And third is the
limitation of my language. I find it difficult to express myself in a
foreign language. Nevertheless, I will try my best. Dr. Trikha took considerable time to introduce me, but he has also
made my task easier by defining Satyagraha. However, I differ with him
on a few things. Firstly, in Satyagraha there is no victory or
defeat. The objective is to find the truth. So if while making
comparisons between defeat and victory, or success and failure, one
chooses one or the other, one may perhaps not become a true
Satyagrahi. A Satyagrahi looks only for the perception of truth -
nothing else. Victory is partial, it is compared with defeat, so if
one has the perception of victory and defeat, then there is fear and
desire. As long as fear and desire remain in one's mind, one may not
be a completely true Satyagrahi. Hence, we have to rise above desire
and fear. But the intention to find only the truth and to remain with
it - to insist upon it - is Satyagraha. Truth, according to the Buddhist viewpoint, has two levels: absolute,
and relative or conventional. In politics or social justice, absolute
truth does not work; we have to find out the relative truth upon which
we have to work. And relative truth can differ from person to person,
situation to situation or from time to time. As your perception of
truth changes, your insistence will also change. Satyagraha is
amendable and reversible. Once your perception of a relative truth
changes, your insistence will also accordingly need to be
amended. Therefore Gandhi said, "I do not try to be consistent. My
experiment with truth is always progressing and improving. If and when
my perception of truth changes, my actions and insistence will also
accordingly go with it." Hence, Mahatma Gandhi did not care about being inconsistent in his
action and speech. What he cared about was that there should not be
inconsistency between his perception of truth and his action. That is
of utmost importance. If we perceive truth, our actions, speech and
thoughts must be in accordance with that truth. There cannot be any
compromise or inconsistency in this regard. As soon as such an
inconsistency comes in, then we are no longer Satyagrahis. This is a
broad background and it differs slightly from Dr. Trikha's opening
remarks. What I consider to be a better example of Satyagraha in action is what
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his Tibetan Government in Exile are
practicing. This example might be more suitable and perhaps more
useful for this occasion. The English translation of ahimsa is a bit inadequate, so I would like
to explain my understanding of this term. Ahimsa includes a much wider
spectrum of action and activism, whereas non-violence only negates
violence. Truth and ahimsa are two sides of the same coin. When one
perceives truth, the perception 'itself leads one to ahimsa and one
becomes an 'ahimsak' - one perceives the truth more clearly. The two
are interdependent. The practice of ahimsa is the persuasion of truth,
and the persuasion of truth is the practice of ahimsa so they go
together. All actions in our day-to-day life need to be consistent
with what we perceive to be the truth. To give a simpler illustration, His Holiness and his Government in
Exile perceive that genuine self-rule for the entire Tibetan
nationality within the Chinese constitution is an aspect of truth. We
perceive that to remain in association with China with full self-rule
for the entire Tibetan nation is an aspect of truth, and we pursue
it. When we pursue it, we cannot be diplomatic or adjusting. We cannot
compromise many things that might be apparently useful in the pursuit
of our goal. For example, to achieve that self-rule, we need to
negotiate with the authorities of the People's Republic of China
(PRC), who very clearly and vigorously tell us: Okay, we are ready to
negotiate with you, but first His Holiness must accept that Tibet is
an inseparable part of China. He also must accept Taiwan as a province
of PRe. And thirdly he must give up all kinds of separatist
activities. Many people think that His Holiness and his people are fools, and that
if we want to arrive at negotiations we should accept these
things. They wonder why we do not go ahead and say that Tibet is a
part of China. Today it is, indeed, a part of China - the world
accepts this. Then, they say: What is the use of shying away from it?
They say we are absolutely undiplomatic and idiotic. We are told: What
is the harm in saying that Taiwan is a province of China? It was and
it may be again in the future. And what harm will agreeing to this do
to the Tibetan cause? Accepting Taiwan as a province of PRC will not
make it happen tomorrow. PRC cannot occupy Taiwan the next day. These
are just words, but you don't pronounce them. If you do, we are told,
then this will provide a good opening. After that, if China does' not
come for negotiations, then you can tell the international community
that you have accepted all the preconditions for talks, but yet China
is not coming for negotiations. Then your case will be much stronger.
But we insist in not accepting what is not true. In accordance with
our perception, His Holiness cannot re-write the history of Tibet. He
cannot say that Tibet was, will be, and is an inseparable part of
China - it was not. So we have to say: Look, we cannot accept these
preconditions whether there are any negotiations or not. We want
negotiations, but we cannot accept something which is an untruth
according to our perception. This is our insistence on truth.
As far as Taiwan is concerned, we have no business to interfere in its
matters; it is an internal or external matter between mainland China
and Taiwan. Who are we to accept or reject matters involving a nation
with which we have no connection, relation or business? So we are not
able to accept this precondition either. Of course, as far as the
question of giving up all kinds of separatist activities is concerned,
we have not, do not, and will not engage in them. This I will say with
authority. This is one kind of Satyagraha which we are practicing
now. Not compromising with truth, yet insisting on negotiations
through which a solution to the Tibet problem can be found. Similarly, in day-ta-day administratian we insist an truth,
non-vialence and genuine demacracy. Many of my civil servants and
colleagues find this very harmful far running the administratian/
institution smoothly, particularly in a place like India, where there
are many things that need to be done illegally and through unfair
means. If we stop resorting to unfair means in getting things done,
it is certain that there will be a lot of delays and we will face
inconvenience even in small things. Far the last two years we,
particularly my administratian, has very clearly refused
to do anything which infringes the law af the land - the Indian
law. This is a Himalayan problem - there are huge obstacles but we
accept these inconveniences. One aspect af Satyagraha is to accept
the torture, the problem and the suffering and yet not compromise with
truth. We experience difficulties day in and day out, but we have not
given up. I cannat say that every department and every civil servant
of my administratian is working this way, but by and large we are
trying to. This is another kind af Satyagraha that we are
practicing. To conclude, there is another important aspect of
Satyagraha that we are practicing, and that is to resist injustice,
and to resist reacting to violence. Mahatma Gandhi was nat happy
with the expression 'passive resistance'. Passivity implies laziness
ar idleness; and there are many religious traditians which teach
nonresistance to evil. Resistance is also considered a kind af
violence, but this is a dangerous misconceptian. Many peaple think
non-vialence means non-resistance ar non-reaction to injustice. But
justice is an aspect af truth and to do everything possible within
one's power to protect and preserve justice - that is the legitimate
duty of a Satyagrahi. Wherever we see or encounter violence and injustice, we have
to resist it compassianately and lovingly. Without any trace of
hatred ar vengeance, we have to resist it physically, vocally and
mentally. We have to go through all the threats and
dangers. Resistance means an opposite action. If there is violence and
one resists it by counter-violence, ane just falls into the trap of
the opponents. Those who indulge in violence are promoting it, and we
contribute to it if we indulge in counter-vialence. The Satyagrahi
thinks that violence resisted by counter-vialence is a big
contributian to that vialence, because it will not do anything
to reduce or bring about the cessatian of violence. Sensible people can see that if there is a fire and they want to
extinguish it, they have to add something which is opposite in
nature. Fire cannot be extinguished by adding more fire or fuel
to it. If there is a flood, we have to reduce the amount of water or
stop its source. To fight a flood we cannot put more water in
it. This is a very clear law af nature which needs to be
understood. So we have to resist injustice or violence by applying
the opposite force. That opposite force can reduce and eliminate
violence, because it eliminates the cause of violence. Buddha's first teaching is the simple fact that we shauld be aware af
the existence af misery, we should search for the cause of that
misery, and we should understand the possibility of eliminating its
cause. And the method - the path for eliminating that cause - should
be practiced or adapted. These are simple and noble truths and they
are applicable to every human action. Whatever we do, we have
to act according to these noble truths. If we are suffering from a disease, we have to discover its root
cause, then we have to find an antidote for it and only by
eliminating the root cause will we be cured. Only treating the
symptoms, as most of the madern allopathic drugs do, will not cure
the disease. We may get same temparary relief but the disease will
remain. Satyagrahis must be able to search far the cause of a problem and
eradicate it from its root. The present Tibet situatian is caused by
the ignorance, hatred and greed of a few dictators in PRC. These are
negative emotians. If we are to resolve this problem, we have
to deal with the negative emotians of the Chinese leadership. These
negative emotians can be reduced and finally eliminated if we apply
opposite forces to counter them. These opposite forces are love,
kindness, affection, caring and desirelessness. This attitude can
directly affect the mindset of the Chinese leadership. Once their
mindset is changed, the problem will be automatically solved. And it
would not only be temporarily solved, but the solution to the problem
through Satyagraha would be a permanent solution and we are looking
forward to achieving that solution.
(Kalon Tripa, Central Tibetan Administration)
delivered at 4th Intl. Conf. of Tibet Support Groups
Prague, 2003