Author: Claude Arpi
Publication: Rediff.com
Date: December 14, 2007
URL: http://www.rediff.com///news/2007/dec/14claude.htm
Imagine a committee of the Left parties headed
by veteran Marxist Jyoti Basu, with CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat,
CPI-M Politburo member Sitaram Yechuri, CPI General Secretary A B Bardhan
and Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee (West Bengal's chief minister) as members, along
with a few other 'religious Marxist experts' secretly meeting in Kolkata to
select the reincarnation of the CPI-M leader.
After a couple of days, white smoke may appear
above the building where they are meeting and a Vatican-style announcement
made, Habemus Pappam ('We have a new pope' or, in this case, a new general
secretary).
You may politely tell me: 'Do not play an
April fool joke on me.'
Unfortunately, it is not a joke. It has happened
in China. The stage was set for the tragicomedy when, on July 13, the Communist
government in Beijing decided to implement the 'Measures on the Management
of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism.'
Soon after it was discovered on the State
Administration of Religious Affairs' Web site, the new policy was denounced
as 'ludicrous and unwarranted' by the Dalai Lama's government in exile. They
found that 'replete with contradictory statements and wild claims, the document
reflects the ulterior or true motives of the Chinese leadership.'
Obviously the Dalai Lama was targeted; China
watchers knew that Beijing had been 'preparing' for his succession.
Article 2 of 'The Measures' explains their
purpose: 'Reincarnating living Buddhas should respect and protect the principles
of the unification of the State, protecting the unity of the minorities, protecting
religious concord and social harmony, and protecting the normal order of Tibetan
Buddhism. (They)... may not re-establish feudal privileges which have already
been abolished.'
It makes an even more pointed reference at
the Nobel Peace Prize laureate: 'Reincarnating living Buddhas shall not...
be under the dominion of any foreign organisation or individual.'
If he could read some of the 14 articles listed
in 'The Measures', poor Karl Marx would be uncomfortable in his grave. They
describe in great detail how 'reincarnating living Buddhas should carry out
application and approval procedures.' Thirteen hundred years after the introduction
of the Awakened One's doctrine in the Land of Snows, China's Communist Party
has taken over the most sacred religious tradition of Tibet, the search and
recognition of the tulkuS or reincarnations of deceased realised teachers
(lamas in Tibetan).
From September 1, the party and its 'religious
department' will have the monopoly over the selection: 'No group or individual
may without authorisation carry out any activities related to searching for
or recognising reincarnating living Buddha soul children.'
It practically means that the Communist Party
of China forbids the Dalai Lama and other senior lamas living in exile to
perform their centuries-old religious duties. They are even threatened: 'Persons
and units who are responsible for being in contravention of these measures
and who, without authority, carry out living Buddha reincarnation affairs,
shall be dealt administrative sanction by the people's government religious
affairs departments... when a crime has been constituted, criminal responsibility
shall be pursued.
Soon after the announcement, Lodi Gyari, the
Dalai Lama's special envoy declared: 'These stringent new measures strike
at the heart of Tibetan religious identity. They will only create further
resentment among the Tibetan people and cannot override the Party's lack of
legitimacy in the sphere of religion.'
The Chinese government's announcement strikes
primarily at the current negotiations that Lodi Gyari is holding with China
since 2002 (six rounds have been held so far) and more particularly at the
'genuine autonomy' envisaged by the Dalai Lama. Can there be any autonomy
if even the innermost traditions are controlled by the party and its leadership?
On November 27, at a gathering of religious
leaders in Amritsar, the Dalai Lama clarified his position: 'The Tibetan nation
is 2,000 years old. The Dalai Lama institution is relatively recent -- only
a few centuries old. If I die, it will be a setback for the Tibetan people
for some time. But then, the struggle will continue.' He added: 'If the Tibetan
people decide that the Dalai Lama institution is no longer relevant, then
it will automatically cease to exist. If people feel that the institution
of the Dalai Lama is still necessary, it will continue.'
He then spoke of a referendum: 'When my physical
condition becomes weak, then serious preparations (for a referendum) should
happen.' He further elaborated: 'The very purpose of reincarnation is to carry
out the tasks of the previous life that are not yet achieved. If I die while
we are still refugees, my reincarnation, logically, will come outside Tibet,
who will carry out the work I started.'
A week earlier, in Japan, he had spoken of
the possibility of naming a new Dalai Lama while he was still alive. Chinese
foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao had immediately rejected the process
which would 'blatantly violate religious rituals and historical conventions
of Tibetan Buddhism.'
The Tibetan leader's recent declaration raises
some important questions. First, in view of the intransigence of the Beijing
government, it is clear that the 'negotiations' will lead nowhere if institutions
like finding reincarnations are controlled by an atheist party in Beijing
and not by knowledgeable Tibetans.
Second, the present approach of the Dalai
Lama is a continuation of his past position; in 1963, he promulgated a charter
to launch democracy in his exiled government. In February 1992, he himself
issued The Guidelines For Future Tibet's Polity And Basic Features Of Its
Constitution in which he made significant suggestions for introducing the
democratic process in Tibet.
Categorically declaring that he will not hold
any official position in the future government, he mentioned a referendum.
The Tibetan population inside Tibet would be consulted and 'if the parliamentary
system of government is adopted, there shall be a president and a vice-president
elected by members of the two national-level houses and regional assemblies.'
The present proposal for his succession is the logical continuation of these
earlier statements.
Historically, the 'rule by incarnation' has
not always been prevalent in Tibet; it was only established during the reign
of the fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobsang Gyatso (1617-1682). In the 14th and
15th centuries for example, the hierarchs of the Sakya monastery ruled over
the Land of Snows (as Tibet is also known); their succession was set up by
way of 'transmission' from uncle to nephew. Contrary to what the present regime
in Beijing may think, there are no rules fixed for eternity for the succession
of Tibetan teachers.
Some historians (one of them was Michael Aris,
the late husband of Burmese leader Aug San Suu Kyi) believed that, at the
beginning of the 17th century, two Dalai Lamas were alive at the same time
(the sixth and the seventh).
There was no fixed place either as to where
a Dalai Lama should be reborn -- the fourth one, Yonten Gyatso was born in
Mongolia while the 6th one, Tsangyang Gyatso, took birth in India (in Tawang
district of today's Arunachal Pradesh).
During an interview for India Abroad (the
Indian-American weekly owned by rediff.com) in 2003, my then 13-year old daughter
asked the Dalai Lama a question which was bothering her: "Why can't the
Dalai Lama be a woman?" He answered: "Regency is a disruption. Many
unfortunate things happened during regencies. After the death of the 13th
Dalai Lama, I had two regents. Of course, both of them were my teachers, my
gurus. I respect them and I had full faith in them. However their conduct
was not always up to the mark, sometimes even harmful (to Tibet's interests).
My point is that if, in certain circumstances, a female form is more useful,
then certainly a female form will come."
That is to say, the Tibetan system of governance
can evolve with time; it is not for the Party to decide on a matter in which
it is an ignoramus.
The Dalai Lama is also perfectly aware of
the weakness of the Tibetan system of 'rule by incarnation'. During the interregnum
between the death of a Dalai Lama and the attainment of majority by the newly
reincarnated child, there is a political vacuum lasting between 15 and 20
years.
The 19th century saw a succession of five
Dalai Lamas. The Chinese, through their ambans (or ambassadors) in Lhasa,
made full use of this weakness. Many historians surmise that the premature
deaths of the ninth, and up to the 12th Dalai Lamas, were not a mere coincidence.
The Chinese ambans certainly took great advantage of their 'timely departure.'
Today, even if the Dalai Lama holds a referendum
to know if the Tibetan people want the present system to continue, he will
still have to decide upon the best way to 'transmit' his knowledge and experience
to 'carry out the tasks of the previous life.'
One thing is sure, it is not for you or me
or the Karats or Hu Jintaos to decide; it is too profound a tradition to be
left in the hands of the profane.
