Diehard Dalai Lama's Dilemma

Tibet will never become a sovereign nation again, in our lifetimes. No matter what criminal acts the Chinese pursue against them, that is the reality. No other nation of power thinks to make it otherwise. Because of the erstwhile social structure of Tibet, I don't see why the Dalai Lama cannot fulfill both functions.

0 Replies

Edgar
Kindly excuse me.
It is not a question of China's behaviour towards the autonomous region of Tibet.
My question is this.
Is Dalai Lama
THE HEAD OF A GOVERNMENT IN EXILE?

0 Replies

"Because of the erstwhile social structure of Tibet, I don't see why the Dalai Lama cannot fulfill both functions."

_________________
I think I gave an opinion on that.

0 Replies

Edgar
I had not questioned about the personality.
I sought clarification about the person's role
and the world's view about thoe plight of the person:
It was 1959 when he came to India and settled in Dharmasala
In between he had been rightly honoured with noble award
but still he is an ASYLUM or Refugee.
Am I to understand that he is acknowledged as a pious religious leader and nothing else?

0 Replies

No. Read it again.

"Because of the erstwhile social structure of Tibet, I don't see why the Dalai Lama cannot fulfill both functions."

0 Replies

Roger
My question needs some clarification from you all.
English is not my religion nor my tongue.
Be precise to enlighten the participants like me
with crisp logical response ..

0 Replies

Before the British took over India, Tibet was part of China. Britain's interference with Asian territory is what caused this problem of India, Pakistan, China and Tibet. When Britain left India, the borders of India, China and Pakistan were unresolved. British India was a lot larger than India under the Mughals.

0 Replies

If tibet was part of china (before british came to india) why tibetians dont believe that they are chinese?

0 Replies

China and India were empires composed of many tribes. China imposed a uniform language while India didn't. Many Hindus in Mughal India didn't consider themselves Muslim nor Mughals yet they are part of the Mughal Empire. Why didn't India live up to it promise to allow the Kashmiris a plebisite to determine its fate? India instead sent Indian troops. Kashmiris are 90% Muslim and want to part of Pakistan.

0 Replies

Talk

Your question about India's role in deciding the fate of Kashmir is relevant.
But my view is this .

My question is this.
Is Dalai Lama
THE HEAD OF A GOVERNMENT IN EXILE?

A religious person like Catholic POPE and Dalai Lama should not be treated as the head of state( Vatican)

0 Replies

Who decides this?

if people of a country unanimously decide the head of the government then obviously Tibetans would want Dalai Lama. They all are unanimous on his name.

It will be fair as it would be democratic.

So whether we like it or not, if people say, he will be the head of a state.

0 Replies

Vinsan
I beg your pardon.
The word Democracy is unknown to religious leaders.
Do you think that Vatican President is democratically elected?
Or are you of the opinion that Sankarachariya of kancheepuram is duly, legitimately elected like the Chief minister of his abode?
Anyway it is not my soup to sip.
I am of the opinion that Dalai Lama is only a relious leader and not a head of a country in Exiile

0 Replies

Tibet is a theocracy just like the Vatican. The Dalai Lama was not chosen by the people but picked by the reigning but retiring Lama who feels the next Lama is a "reincarnation" of himself or the Buddha. It shows that religion thrumps democracy. Religion and politics should be separate.n It is religion that is causing all the problem with Kashmir, Tibet, Israel and Iraq.

0 Replies

Personally, I prefer Kashmir to be part of a secular state like India than an Islamic Pakistan but the reality and the correctness is that the people of Kashmir should have the choice. If they want to be part of Pakistan they be allowed. It will only trouble in the long run.

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

Vinsan
I beg your pardon.
The word Democracy is unknown to religious leaders.
Do you think that Vatican President is democratically elected?
Or are you of the opinion that Sankarachariya of kancheepuram is duly, legitimately elected like the Chief minister of his abode?
Anyway it is not my soup to sip.
I am of the opinion that Dalai Lama is only a relious leader and not a head of a country in Exiile

I know that religious leaders are not selected by people of the region "democratically" but by the religous groups who believe n them.

I also understand your point that democracy does not go along with religion. But religion does shape the democracy, many-a-times.

0 Replies

The position of an apparent theocracy in Tibet is a result of a political vacuum. In an agricultural society mountainous regions were inhabited by marginal people as there were either driven there or moved out as they could not compete in the richer lands. The Tibetans are of Mongol origin and still felt an attachment to China for I am sure they bought things from traders of Chinese origin. In an industrial age the mountains are no longer marginal regions as they are accessible and could mean mineral wealth.

The Vatican came into being as the Popes were at one time religious and political positions. However, the Italian authorities were fed up with the Pope's meddling in political affairs and stripped the Pope of all political authority and gave the church a piece of land and self autonomy.

The position of Tibet would be closer to that of Quebec in Canada. The French aided the Americans in their Revolution and to help the nascent country grow sold them French lands. President Jefferson bought Louisiana from Napoleon Bonaparte who needed the money for wars in Europe. The French in Canada lost to the British so Canada came under British control and the French were isolated in Upper Canada which became Quebec. As Quebec was an ocean away from France there was a political vacuum. The Catholic Church controlled life in Quebec till '60s.

However, Tibet is not an ocean away from China and not highly accessible enjoyed an autonomy for along time. The modern age has changed the accessibility and marginal factors.

0 Replies

Vinsan
I have a critical question which needs clarification.
As an Athiest till my death I follow the religious head's behaviour.
One of the religious head is Dalai lama .
He is visible in Europe and USA every alternate months.
But he is not available in Sri Lanka where Buddhis are at the helm of affairs
If Dalai Lama is a democratically accepted head of the state TIBET in EXILE
should we not expect to make visit to Sri Lanka as he is doing in Christian countries?
Should I repent for Mother Theresa's alternate behaviour?

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

Vinsan
I have a critical question which needs clarification.
As an Athiest till my death I follow the religious head's behaviour.
One of the religious head is Dalai lama .
He is visible in Europe and USA every alternate months.
But he is not available in Sri Lanka where Buddhis are at the helm of affairs
If Dalai Lama is a democratically accepted head of the state TIBET in EXILE
should we not expect to make visit to Sri Lanka as he is doing in Christian countries?
Should I repent for Mother Theresa's alternate behaviour?

This question has been asked to dalai lama himself a plenty of times (about why he spends most of his time abroad) and his answer to that is tactical. He wants to create funds and awareness about buddhism and disusss issues on tibetians in the developed countries. After Christainaity, Buddhism is another fastest spreading religion in the developed countries like Australia, UK and Canada. So may be we can say the tactics are paying off...

About him not been seen in srilanka so often, I do not know anything about that. He is also very rarely seen in India these days.

I do not understand which ALTERNATE behaviour of mother teresa are you talking about? Is it her staying in India and spreading christianity or her not going to european countries which are already christian? Confused

Now before someone makes things (mis)understood his/her way, I would like to specify here that I have full respect to Mother Teresa and her services to the poor and needy. She was a true christian.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

The position of an apparent theocracy in Tibet is a result of a political vacuum. In an agricultural society mountainous regions were inhabited by marginal people as there were either driven there or moved out as they could not compete in the richer lands. The Tibetans are of Mongol origin and still felt an attachment to China for I am sure they bought things from traders of Chinese origin. In an industrial age the mountains are no longer marginal regions as they are accessible and could mean mineral wealth.

The Vatican came into being as the Popes were at one time religious and political positions. However, the Italian authorities were fed up with the Pope's meddling in political affairs and stripped the Pope of all political authority and gave the church a piece of land and self autonomy.

The position of Tibet would be closer to that of Quebec in Canada. The French aided the Americans in their Revolution and to help the nascent country grow sold them French lands. President Jefferson bought Louisiana from Napoleon Bonaparte who needed the money for wars in Europe. The French in Canada lost to the British so Canada came under British control and the French were isolated in Upper Canada which became Quebec. As Quebec was an ocean away from France there was a political vacuum. The Catholic Church controlled life in Quebec till '60s.

However, Tibet is not an ocean away from China and not highly accessible enjoyed an autonomy for along time. The modern age has changed the accessibility and marginal factors.

Thx for the information talk.

But it is very unfortunate for Buddhists (unlike christian and Muslims) to not enjoy their autonomous country and not see their religious head on his prime at the ease of his access.

0 Replies

Diehard Dalai Lama's Dilemma

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know