Continuing the conversation between His Holiness the Dalai Lama , spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, and The Indian Express Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta , on NDTV 24×7’s Walk the Talk programme
Is there is a lot of forced settlement in Tibet as well?
It’s a similar trend in Tibet. Take the railway link. The link itself, I consider positive. It’s a sign of progress. But if you use it for a political purpose, for example, to bring in more Chinese easily, then that’s demographic aggression and it is very serious. So, if you look locally at the Tibetan cause, you sometimes almost feel hopeless. But, if you look at it from a wider perspective at the global level, most of the totalitarian regimes, whether communist or non-communist, have all now changed, they’re all gone, except for China, North Korea and Vietnam, and to some extent Cuba.
And Venezuela’s heading a little that way now, unfortunately.
Well, I met some Venezuelans recently-the poor really appreciate their new president. It seems he takes real concern for the rights of the poor. But in China compare today’s China with what it was twenty or thirty years ago. There’s been so much change. This is what I tell people-look at Mao’s era: the main concern was ideology. Then Deng Xiaoping’s era-it was the economy. Jiang Zemin’s era-it was the expansion of the Communist Party’s influence, to not only the working class, but also the people from the middle and the wealthier classes. Now in President Hu Jintao’s tenure, he may create a different policy according to the new reality.
And these new realities include the need for political freedom?
I think it’s common sense, to introduce more freedom, particularly of information and the media. Information freedom is very, very important for China, so it can have closer relations with the rest of the world.
Your Holiness, that is the Dalai Lama’s way of looking at the positive side of everything. From my cynical journalist’s perspective, at a time when the Chinese are becoming so powerful—that nobody in the world even questions them—many heads of state are now shy of even greeting you formally. India’s own position is getting closer and closer to China. Doesn’t it look hopeless to you to keep fighting to preserve the Tibetan way of life?
No. From the wider perspective I feel the Tibetan cause is very hopeful. The awareness about Tibet, Tibetan culture, Tibetan spirituality, and also sensitivity towards the Tibetan environment, is growing not only outside, but even among the Chinese. More and more Chinese are showing more and more interest in Tibet’s culture and its delicate environment. There are Chinese NGOs, although they are small, they are showing genuine concern.
You are not worried about India’s getting closer to the Chinese?
No. I welcome it. First, I have always stressed that China, the most populous nation, must be brought into the mainstream of the world. It should not isolate itself. On that principle, India’s relation with China is very important. Genuine friendship on the basis mutual trust between these two nations, the most populous countries on earth, is essential. It’s in the interest not only of these two countries but of the whole world.
So the recent talks now to settle the border-those don’t cause you any concern? It is the Tibetan border, after all.
Look, again, I am not seeking independence. I am seeking some kind of mutually agreeable solution. The border issue is up to the central government.
But if India and China get close to a settlement, would it undermine India’s ability to speak for the Tibetan cause? I know that you have complaints that India has not done enough.
I usually describe India’s policy regarding China in general and Tibet in particular as over-cautious. That will continue (laughs). But in the meantime, I think, that for the past forty-six years, the Indian government and people have helped a lot to keep the Tibet issue alive.
But over-cautiousness isn’t good. Do you think it’s in keeping with India’s stature that India could be more confident?
Yes. In the past, I have had the impression that India, in spite of being a big nation, an ancient nation, the biggest democratic nation, tends to act only in response; not taking the initiative. But perhaps now, with the economy and so many other things growing, India will show more assertion. I think India’s relation with Tibet is something very unique. For millions of Indian minds, Mount Kailash and Mansarovar are very important.
And for Tibetans, Nalanda.
Oh yes, Bodhgaya for Tibetans, India is the home of Buddhism. Emotionally and spiritually there is something very close between us. When Morarji Desai became prime minister, I sent him a letter of congratulation, as is my usual practice whenever there comes a new head of state. In his reply, he wrote: ‘The Tibetan and Indian cultures are two branches of one Bodhi tree.’ I think that’s very true. Tibet’s whole culture came from India. And the Buddhist culture preserved in Tibet for so long is a very important matter for India.
So, you have no anxieties about an India-China settlement; you don’t think that will compromise the Tibetan cause?
No.
Because if you look at the border talks right now, they are very delicate. One of the sticking points is Tawang, where you have a monastery. Some people think that if the border talks are to be settled, then India needs the Dalai Lama to be part of a creative solution. Have you thought about it?
In the long run, in order to develop genuine mutual friendship between India and China, I think the Tibet issue is bound to be involved. So long as a large number of Chinese military forces are stationed in Tibet, I think genuine trust is going to be very difficult. The Tibet issue is still very sensitive to the Chinese government-it is compelled to keep a large number of soldiers there.
You have such a wide following all around the world from Hollywood stars to political leaders. Do you sometimes get the feeling you are becoming bigger than the cause?
I don’t care what people see me as. The thing is I am one of the six billion human beings on this planet. I believe the future of every one of these six billion human beings depends on humanity as a whole. Of course, the largest part of my life is already past. I have maybe two or three decades remaining. Whether they are happy or difficult depends on all humanity. As one individual human being out of six billion, I have to think about humanity.
I’m looking at your shoes now. One of your critics was Rupert Murdoch, who attacked you for wearing Gucci shoes.
Well these are very comfortable-where they were made, I don’t know.
Why do people like Rupert Murdoch attack you? Their allegation is that you have become the rock star of Buddhism.
See, I have three commitments. The first is the promotion of human values. The second is the promotion of religious harmony. The third is the cause of Tibet. As a human being, I try to make my contribution, to share in the betterment of the world. That’s all, whatever other people say. Some say ‘god king’. Some say ‘spiritist’. Some say ‘anti-Buddhist’. These are their own mental projections. For the reality, I usually describe myself as a simple Buddhist monk.
A simple Buddhist monk who combines his two roles so delicately: the political and the religious.
If someone describes me as the living Buddha and does prostrations to me, I can only laugh: it’s not realistic. During the Cultural Revolution, some in the Chinese media described me as a wolf in monk’s robes-I’m just a simple human being, you know, not a wolf.
Your Holiness, let me take you back to politics. You’ve dealt with all the Chinese leaders-Mao, Deng, the present leadership. What’s the difference? Are they, in their minds, not communists?
I think the Chinese are quite realistic and hard working. As I mentioned before, judging by the last five or six decades, I think the new leadership is acting according to the new reality. Sometimes I feel for such a huge country, the leadership naturally has lots of problems, many complications. But, sometimes, in the Chinese case too, I think their policy is over cautious. The two biggest nations really have very similar experiences.
The last thing you would expect is for the Dalai Lama, the greatest living teacher of Buddhism, is to be telling one third of humanity to take more risks (both laugh).Do you suspect some of these new leaders of China also pray sometimes, that they need to think of some God?
According to some, quite a few Chinese high officials privately show faith to different religious traditions. Naturally. When people get wealthier and have all the material facilities, but have something missing inside, they automatically show more interest in spirituality.
I recently had Professor V. R. Ramachandran on this show, who’s one of the world’s foremost scientists on the brain and cognitive studies. I asked if there was God. And he said that if somebody says God is some old man sitting up on high who punishes you for the bad things you do, that’s mumbo jumbo. But if you think of God in a lofty spiritual sense as the final truth underlying every appearance, then he or she is there, it’s a reality. Is that what you’re talking about when you say that in your mind you need to relate to some higher power, even if you’re a die-hard communist?
That is difficult to say. It depends on the individual.
Will Communism defy neurobiology?
I think genuine, honest Communism or Socialism has a lot in common with Buddhism, particularly with Mahayana Buddhism. Sometimes I describe myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist. Marxist economy is not only concerned with profit, but with distribution. It has serious concern for the less privileged-and that means the majority. That altruism is a Buddhist concept too.
But in the Chinese Communist view, the Dalai Lama is a feudal institution.
It’s an old institution, and it’s actually gone. As early as 1969, I publicly made a formal statement that whether the very institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not is up to the Tibetan people. I have no concern about this institution. The Dalai Lama has been the head of both temporal and spiritual matters in Tibet for over three hundred years. But that’s past. Again, in 1992, when I made a statement about the future of Tibet, I made it clear that when the day comes for our return with a certain degree of freedom, then I will hand over all my authority to the local Tibetan government. Hopefully, that local government should eventually be an elected government. Meanwhile, even while we are outside, for the last four years we have already had an elected political leadership. Since then, my position is something like semi-retirement. I have more freedom now, more free time.
Do you really believe that the Tibetan cause and the Tibetan way of life will survive the end of the institution of the Dalai Lama?
The Dalai Lama institution came about at one point of history; now, at some time, it will disappear. But Tibetan spirituality, the Tibetan tradition, Buddhist culture, will remain. As long as the Tibetan community is there, it will remain.
And Richard Gere will not be the most prominent Buddhist for the younger generation?
I think he, among the artists, is a very genuine practitioner of the Buddha dharma. He first practiced Zen, then he came to Tibetan Buddhism.
I read in your biography that when you first came to India in 1956, you had several meetings with Jawaharlal Nehru. Do you remember something about those meetings?
It’s very interesting: the main person who advised me to return, in 1956 and ’57 was Pandit Nehru.
He said, go back to Tibet?
Yes. Once he came to see me with a copy of a seventeen-point programme. He personally read it out to me and he told me that it should be the basis on which I should carry on the struggle to preserve our culture. He gave me every encouragement to struggle within Tibet. Then in ’59, things became out of control and there was no other way but to leave. But he showed me a special interest and concern because I had listened to his advice to return-the situation had become such a disaster that he felt a moral responsibility to help. In the early 1960s, he really helped a lot-and on some occasions, I also got a scolding from him. He lost his temper (laughs).
Over what?
Once, we were in Mussoorie, I think it was our first meeting after I escaped. I had a long talk with him about what had happened since I returned from India in ’57. Then I requested him for help to stop the bloodshed and the suffering and also told him that we were trying to re-establish the Tibetan government in southern Tibet. That was when he lost his temper. He banged on the chair and said it was impossible. He found a contradiction between the two. But later, in ’59, when we decided to raise the Tibetan issue at the UN, Pandit Nehru was opposed to it. When I went to meet him, I was quite apprehensive of what he might say. But he was completely normal.
You’ve seen all generations of India’s leaders. There’s a fascinating account of Nehru’s meeting with Dwight Eisenhower, where he tells Eisenhower not to be so angry with China, he says: ‘Give Communism time, it will ultimately sort itself out.’ Countered to that is the Chinese view: ‘Postpone every problem, leave it to a wiser generation.’ Now Nehru’s generation, Indira Gandhi’s generation could not solve the India Pakistan problem. Do you think the leaders of today’s generation have it in them to solve it?
I think the overall picture has changed greatly from the early ’60s to the 21st century. I think, world-wide, the concept is coming in of non-violence, of neighbourliness.
But do you see India and Pakistan settling their problems.
Certainly. One of my friends in Pakistan told me that ordinary people and also some political leaders as individuals are very keen to have closer relations with India.
Is this a situation where we might see the Dalai Lama one day getting involved with his moral authority? Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama-somebody might need to get involved to give confidence, to cut through the mistrust of so many decades.
I will tell you my thinking in the matter. When the Iraq crisis was about to happen, some people wrote me a letter telling me to go to Baghdad to do something to prevent the bloodshed. At that time, I thought it was unrealistic. I have no contact with the Arab world or with Iraq. But afterwards, I felt very strongly that if at that time some individual, a Nobel laureate, or a scientist or a former leader, someone like Vaclav Havel, the former Czech president-or some group which does not represent any government, any country, but represents peace-had gone there, met Saddam Hussein, talked, I think it may have made a difference. Afterwards, I suggested to some of my close friends that in future wherever some crisis is about to happen, some individual, including the Nobel laureates, must take an active role. President Havel fully agreed, so did Nelson Mandela. Next month I will hopefully be going to Northern Ireland with some Nobel laureates. So we shall see-not just me alone but as a group.
To build a combined moral force.
If we find some opportunity to serve Pakistan and India, and mainly to address the Kashmir problem, we will be only too happy to make some contribution.
Do you think the time has now come to settle this?
I think in the overall picture both sides now have a more conciliatory attitude.
Do you see a normalisation of the Tibet issue in your lifetime?
Most hopefully. We already have direct contact with the Chinese government; we’ve had it for the last three years. Untill now, our main effort has been to build confidence.
And it’s a happy contact?
The atmosphere of the meetings has shown improvement. Now through closer, more frank discussions, I think, things may change. But we’ll see. It’s entirely up to China.
Your Holiness, I can’t let you go without one question. Your laughter is legendary; it makes so many sad faces light up around the world. Tell me one funny thing that happened recently that made you laugh.
Well, I can’t really remember, but I always laugh if somebody makes a mistake in a gathering. And that happens quite often-you see, people try to be very formal and then something happens and it breaks.
And what is it that pains you, apart from the cause you’ve been fighting for all this time?
Well, that happened just recently-I was dressing one morning and the earth shook and I wondered what had happened. Immediately afterwards, the media said there had been this serious earthquake. I have been very saddened ever since. Now, the weather is becoming cold; we’ve already had some snow-what is going to become of these people without shelter, without clothes?
If the Americans elect George Bush twice it’s their own karma?
(laughs). Yes. Just before the election in America, I met some American friends. They really disagree with his policy in Iraq, but now that they’ve committed to him, they’re compelled to support him.
