“For 50 years, the Dalai Lama asked us to use peaceful means to solve the problems, and that achieved nothing. China just criticizes him. After he’s gone, there definitely will be violent resistance”- a monk is quoted as saying in an article titled “Fed up with peace”.
Whereas Gandhi used non-violence as a principle and as a tactic, the Dalai Lama, according to his critics, has mistaken non-violence for mere, passive resistance and has been ineffective.
Observers also point out that such a weak movement is unlikely to cut ice with the Chinese, who unlike the British against India, and without the burden of democracy, don’t have to worry about public sentiment.
Why is the Dalai Lama persisting with his policy of peaceful protests and not showing more aggression? One reason I can think of is that he is starving all the time. According to his official website, for breakfast, His Holiness typically has hot porridge, tsampa (barley powder), bread with preserves, and tea. For lunch, when in Dharamsala, he eats a light vegetarian meal. He has a cup of tea at 6 pm, and as ordained for Buddhist monks, skips dinner.
How can you expect him to shed his inhibitions and turn to aggression against the Chinese, when he is not feeding himself properly?
As P.G.Wodehouse wrote in one of his Mulliner stories, “"Why is there unrest in India? Because its inhabitants eat only an occasional handful of rice. The day when Mahatma Gandhi sits down to a good juicy steak and follows it up with roly-poly pudding and a spot of Stilton, you will see the end of all this nonsense of Civil Disobedience”
Whereas Gandhi used non-violence as a principle and as a tactic, the Dalai Lama, according to his critics, has mistaken non-violence for mere, passive resistance and has been ineffective.
Observers also point out that such a weak movement is unlikely to cut ice with the Chinese, who unlike the British against India, and without the burden of democracy, don’t have to worry about public sentiment.
Why is the Dalai Lama persisting with his policy of peaceful protests and not showing more aggression? One reason I can think of is that he is starving all the time. According to his official website, for breakfast, His Holiness typically has hot porridge, tsampa (barley powder), bread with preserves, and tea. For lunch, when in Dharamsala, he eats a light vegetarian meal. He has a cup of tea at 6 pm, and as ordained for Buddhist monks, skips dinner.
How can you expect him to shed his inhibitions and turn to aggression against the Chinese, when he is not feeding himself properly?
As P.G.Wodehouse wrote in one of his Mulliner stories, “"Why is there unrest in India? Because its inhabitants eat only an occasional handful of rice. The day when Mahatma Gandhi sits down to a good juicy steak and follows it up with roly-poly pudding and a spot of Stilton, you will see the end of all this nonsense of Civil Disobedience”
4 comments:
PG Wodehouse is a unquestionable genius. And count on you to quote him at the drop of a hat.
But good thing not many of the 'Indian' fanatics are well read in English literature otherwise they would have protested before the Parliament demanding a ban on Wodehouse's books in India saying that it has hurt 'our sentiments'. :D
santhosh, I just read a news report that Tibetan protestors in India have alleged that the Indian Govt was trying to cut off their rice supplies to break their protests. See?
I bet obelix would agree - a few wild boars and a great fight - simple recipe for total happiness.
There is a disconnect. You and Wodehouse are contradicting each other.
Post a Comment