FAQ

What is the purpose of this symbolic pledge?

At this historic moment, when His Holiness the Dalai Lama is turning 80 years old and many are speculating about the future of the Tibetan struggle and the possibility that it could take a violent turn, we want to give Tibetans and supporters an opportunity to publicly declare their commitment to nonviolence, an ideal and a path His Holiness has advanced throughout his life. Through this pledge, individuals make a commitment not just to be nonviolent but to practice nonviolent action to liberate Tibet from colonial oppression. Pledge takers commit to “promote and forward creative, effective, nonviolent advocacy” for Tibet. Simply being nonviolent is not enough; we must also be creative, strategic and proactive in our advocacy. To learn more and get involved with a local Tibet group, please click here.

Don’t Tibetans have the right to take up arms in order to defend themselves?

In the context of international politics, Tibetans have every right to defend themselves against Chinese aggression. This initiative is not meant to pass value judgment on the right of Tibetans to use violence. However, the vast majority of Tibetans choose not to wield violence for moral as well as practical reasons. Kelsang Tsultrim, a Tibetan writer imprisoned for writing and speaking out against China’s occupation of Tibet, put it eloquently when he said: “It is not that we cannot carry violent activities or that we are incapable of doing so. Many have sacrificed their lives for Tibet and hence it is not that we do not have courage or the means. But under the leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama we fight for justice through non-violence.”

Read: “I will not close my eyes even in death”

Isn’t the real battle in Tibet? What difference does it make if Tibetans in exile pledge to be nonviolent?

The battle for Tibetan freedom must be fought in all corners of the world. While the struggle is anchored in Tibet, exile Tibetans and supporters can play an important role by challenging China’s propaganda on Tibet and building international support for Tibetans’ fundamental right to self determination as well as pressure on the Chinese government. In the same way that exile Tibetans look to Tibetans in Tibet for inspiration and direction, Tibetans inside look to those in exile for ideas, information, and inspiration. We are two sides of the same movement and respond to each other constantly. As we hear calls from Tibetans inside Tibet to stick to the path of nonviolence, we can echo and amplify their voices.

Isn’t the Tibet movement already nonviolent?

Of course, the Tibet movement is already nonviolent. But being nonviolent by default is different from making an intentional and strategic commitment to nonviolent action. Besides, we are following the lead of Tibetans inside Tibet, who in recent years have been publicly calling for Tibetans to embrace nonviolent resistance and, in some cases, even handing over their weapons to the local monasteries as a symbol of forswearing violence.* We see this as a powerful symbol of their commitment to nonviolence and allegiance to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and draw inspiration from these acts.

Read: A ‘Raging Storm’: The Crackdown on Tibetan Writers and Artists after Tibet’s Spring 2008 Protests.

Read: Tibetans Hand Weapons in to Monastery, Take Vow of Nonviolence.

The world doesn’t pay attention to nonviolence. Isn’t violence more effective than nonviolence?

Although violent actions seem to garner more media and public attention, it is simply false to believe violence is more effective. The outstanding book on nonviolence, “Why Civil Resistance Works,” by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, provides indisputable evidence to empirically prove the superiority of nonviolent methods, showing that over the last hundred years nonviolent movements have succeeded twice as often as armed struggles. Chenoweth and Stephan’s findings support the work of pioneering nonviolent theorist Dr. Gene Sharp, who argues that nonviolent resistance is practically superior to violent methods. Dr. Sharp laid out a systematic approach to nonviolent resistance, and his theories have been used effectively in many countries to defeat dictatorships and achieve freedom. However, as of now, they have not been embraced on a scale large enough to achieve significant results inside Tibet.

Does this initiative represent a rejection of Tibet’s history of armed resistance?

This initiative does not in any way represent a denial or a rejection of Tibet’s history of armed resistance against Chinese invasion. The Chushigangduk warriors and the Mustang guerrillas waged a courageous resistance against China’s invasion, making a priceless contribution to the Tibetan struggle. We hold their effort in the highest regard and consider their struggle an important chapter of Tibetan history, without which the Tibetan struggle would not be what it is today.