His Holiness the Dalai Lama

An Address at Robert Blackwood Hall, Monash University

Friday 8 June 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Practically everywhere that I visit my visit is of a non-political nature. My main interest or commitment is in the promotion of human values – this is what I consider the key factor in a happy life at the individual level, family level and community level. In modern times it seems that not sufficient attention is paid to these inner values, that is my number one commitment, and then number two, I am concerned with the promotion of religious harmony, so these two are my main interests and commitment. The third interest, as I am a Tibetan with the name of ‘Dalai Lama’, and more importantly, as the Tibetan people inside as well as outside - but particularly inside Tibet - have really put a lot of hopes and trust and expectation on me, I have, therefore, the moral responsibility to serve them. So anyway, people – some people consider this as some sort of political matter. So except for my visits to Washington and Brussels, usually I am not carrying on political discussions. However, now here our supporters and also our friends want to listen to my ‘middle-way approach’ regarding the Tibetan issue.

Firstly, I want to explain the very nature of the Tibetan problem. Geographically people call Tibet, ‘the roof of the world’, and also ‘the land of snows’. This is because the major rivers which cover Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and which include the Mekong River and the Yellow River - the vast Asian continent is covered by these big rivers and their original source is in Tibet. Therefore one aspect of the Tibet issue is the preservation and protection of the environment. Since the 1960s, there has been large scale deforestation taking place. As a result there have been unprecedented floods in China proper as well as Bangladesh and India. According to experts these unusual floods are connected to the large scale deforestation inside Tibet. So fortunately, since some time back, the Chinese central government has imposed some restrictions. However, through corruption and connections, some Chinese who are simply making money have found ways and means to still carry out the cutting of trees.

Then there is the exploration of the minerals and major resources. Of course, there is no harm in using natural resources, but it should be carefully planned without much damage to the environment, that’s lacking, so one aspect of the Tibetan issue is the environment issue. That is not only of concern for six million Tibetan people, but I think the whole of northern India, their life very much depends on these major rivers and they are already now facing scarcity of water, as well as in China proper. So therefore the concern about the environment issue of Tibet is very much connected with millions of people in that continent, in that area. Of course you Australians have no relevance to Tibetan rivers, you are completely independent, but you have your own problems, isn’t it? A lot of drought or something like that. So there is global warming and I think no force can stop that. So with that situation, we really need to pay special attention, special care for the environment of that part of the world. That is number one.

Number two, Tibetan culture. Usually I describe Tibetan culture as basically Buddhist culture. So I make distinctions between Buddhism and Buddhist culture. Buddhist culture means it is related with society. Buddhism as a religion is related with the individual. So, among the Tibetans, there are Muslims, there are Christians - since the early part of the twentieth century some Christians have been there. Muslims have been there since at least the past 400 years. But their lifestyle is very much in the spirit of Buddhist culture. If you visit Srinagar in Kashmir, there is a small group of Tibetan Muslims. In their lifestyle, the furniture in their house is very much of the Tibetan style. And their expressions are also very similar to Buddhist. And so therefore the Buddhist culture, I feel, as a result of seeing many troubles in this planet – for example, due to a small incident there will be bloodshed and the suffering of innocent people in many areas. It happens in Africa and the Middle East. So, when seeing these things I began to realise that Tibetan Buddhist culture really creates a peaceful society. Of course, that does not mean – there are some Tibetans who are very cruel and merciless, fighting and killing, but the overall situation is, I think, that the Tibetan community is comparatively a very compassionate one.

That cultural heritage is really worthwhile to preserve. And the preservation of Tibetan culture, which is Buddhist culture, is naturally very much related to Buddha Dharma, the Buddhist tradition. So for the last almost five or six decades there has been damage and a lot of destruction. Still there are a lot of restrictions inside Tibet. So that is one aspect of the problem. Added to that are human rights violations.

Naturally the Tibetans love their own culture, their own spirituality, Buddhism. Then some others carry out a lot of restrictions and also destruction. Just a few days ago I heard that a statue which was recently built with the help of one Chinese rich family, that statue which was in Samye monastery, I heard that it was destroyed by heavy military personnel, just one week ago.

So therefore, naturally the Tibetans are very resentful. According to a Tibetan who was a member of the Tibetan Communist Party since the last 30-40 years and who worked in various different Chinese departments, according to this person, 90% of people are resentful of the current situation. As a result there is opposition. Of course, direct opposition is very difficult, but indirectly there is some kind of opposition. The reaction to that is immediate arrest and people undergo a lot of torture. In the cases of murder and stealing the reaction is very lenient, but political action – which is actually a Tibetan expression of concern about their own future, or their own culture - that is a crime.

So as a result there is arrest and torture. Just a few days ago, before leaving Australia – I think I left Dharamsala on the 4^th of June, on the 3^rd I met some Tibetans who had recently come from Tibet and among them was one Tibetan prisoner who spent about ten years in a Chinese prison. He personally experienced a lot of torture and one of his companions died in the prison. So, because of that situation, because of that kind of repression, the human rights violations are very serious. That is one aspect of the Tibetan problem.

Then politically, geographically Tibet is between mainland China and India. In the past Tibet acted as a buffer zone. Since 1959 that situation changed and as a result there was the 1962 Sino-Indian war. As a result for both sides there are thousands of military stationed on that difficult border. Both nations very much need economic development. To station a large number of soldiers on both sides of the border is actually very harmful to the economy.

I am often telling my Indian friends – and my Indian friends told me – the amount of money which is spent on the so-called defence of the northern border, that same amount of money, if used for hospitals and schools in India, would build a lot of hospitals and a lot of schools. So anyway, really, this is an extra unnecessary burden in the economic field.

Then, since India and China are the two most populated nations, genuine friendship on the basis of mutual trust is very essential. So for that reason the Tibet issue is somehow involved. As long as the Tibetan people are in an unhappy mental state, as a result the Chinese government have to station a large number of soldier and security personnel there. So long as there is a large military presence there, the Indian side also – while showing a diplomatic smile - but underneath naturally there are suspicions and anxieties. Therefore a genuine normality in that area is very essential in order to develop genuine friendship between India and China on the basis of mutual trust.

These are aspects of the Tibetan issue.

Whether the Chinese government admits it or not, there is a problem. I think every visitor - except for those visitors who are suffering from headaches and altitude sickness and as a result of altitude sickness, they may not notice much - but those people who are more serious and more healthy, everybody sees the situation. There is some kind of wall between the Tibetans and the Chinese.

Some Chinese officials now accuse me, ‘The Dalai Lama is exaggerating the tensions between races’, but actually all of this information is not my creation. This information comes from Tibet. For the last more than 20 years there is a new opportunity for Tibetans to come from Tibet and also for Tibetans to visit their own homeland, so through these people we got a clear picture.

The information comes from among the officials and the cadres of the different departments, including the Chinese Liberation Army. There are Tibetans, Han Chinese and some other minorities, between them there is some kind of war between the Han Chinese and the Tibetans. Then there are students in school, and there is a gap, a distance. Amongst the ordinary people there are also some kinds of barriers, and among the prisoners, among the beggars.  As a result of the establishment of the railway link, at the beginning there were some guests, some wealthier visitors, some pilgrims – some Chinese came as pilgrims [by rail] – but then eventually some beggars and also prostitutes – their number is increasing. So even among the beggars, sometimes, there is a little barrier.

I am telling my Chinese friends, always I am telling them, before 1959, although we sometimes criticise and complain and have suspicion towards [Chinese] policy – never against Chinese. Since the seventh century and eighth century we have a long history of close connection with the Chinese and with Indians. I usually describe our relationship with Indians as something like teacher and student. We are Buddhist. All of our Buddhist traditions are translated from India and many Indian masters came to Tibet. And also many Tibetan students, through many centuries, went to India and studied. So we have very special relations, and also with Chinese, therefore in our mind we are very close friends. Now, after 1959, there is a new racial problem. It is very unfortunate. We have to live side by side. This kind of distrust is very bad for both. So therefore this is a problem – a serious problem. We have to find ways and means to solve this problem. Now we – I always use the word ‘we’, because since last six years, we have an elected political leadership. So actually, as early as 1969, in one of my formal statements I made clear, whether the very institution of Dalai Lama should continue or not was up to the Tibetan people. Then also as early as 1963, we adopted one draft constitution. There one clause mentioned that the Dalai Lama’s power can be abolished by a two thirds’ majority of the Assembly of People’s Deputies.

In April 1959 we came to India as refugees. In 1960 we at once committed ourselves to the promotion of democracy. Now about six years ago, in 2000, we achieved elected political leadership. So since then my position is something like a semi-retired position. I am acting like Adviser – or Senior Adviser. But in practical terms as well as theoretically, the real decisions are in their hands, the elected political leadership’s hands. They are not in my hands.

This is true – we are voluntarily and happily promoting democracy and democratic practice. That is our approach – taken from various viewpoints. Now as early as 1974, China was still in the confusion of the Cultural Revolution or Movement. In Dharamsala, through discussion, we made up our minds, sooner or later we have to talk with the Chinese government. So then the question of independence [for Tibet] is not practical. And also if you look from a wider perspective, this small community, this small nation such as Tibet, economically, it is in our own interests to join with a bigger community. Instead of six million in separation, it is better to join 1000 million. So that is our vision or our view. So, in 1974, we made up our mind that in future, whenever we have the opportunity to talk with the Chinese government, then we will not seek independence but to achieve meaningful autonomy.

Then in 1979, the Chinese leadership of the time - Deng Xiaoping and Hu Yaobang - from their side there was some indication that they wanted to talk with us. So as soon as that indication came, at once we thought, ‘Very good, now we are ready to talk’. So since then the direct contact with the Chinese Government started. In the early 1980s there was real hope, with Deng Xiaoping there and Hu Yaobang there. I think in 1980 Hu Yaobang visited Lhasa and he publicly admitted past mistakes. A communist leader publicly admitting their past mistakes is very, very rare, isn’t it? The communist policy or totalitarian policy is that they are always right. But he was very unusual, practical, pragmatic. The Deng Xiaoping leadership was pragmatic and Hu Yaobang seemed very practical. So he publicly mentioned and also he promised that a large number of Han Chinese would be withdrawn. I think he mentioned that 70% or 80% would withdraw. He mentioned it publicly. So at that time there was real hope. So my personal emissary has met Deng Xiaoping, I think early in 1979. He mentioned, ‘Besides the question of independence, anything can be discussed’. From our side also, since 1974, we already had made up our mind, so there was no problem. So then immediately we started talks with the concerned Chinese government department.

Then in 1983 I expressed that I wanted to visit Tibet to see it for myself, and also to try reconciliation. I expressed my original plan in 1983 and in 1984 I wanted to send a delegation to make preparations. Because our past experience when the first delegation and second delegation visited Tibet there was public mobbing, including from those so-called ‘revolutionary’ – who during the Cultural Revolution were the more ‘advanced’ or ‘revolutionary’ minded people – they were the first batch to greet my delegation. So there was mobbing.

So if my visit was going to create that kind of unrest it would be no good. Therefore we needed careful preparation. So therefore in 1984 I wanted to send a delegation to make preparation for my visit and advise the Tibetans not to do that kind of thing. Then the Chinese Government did not permit that delegation to come. My visit was planned for 1985 but it had to be cancelled.

Then in 1986 and 1987 Hu Yaobang himself was disgraced. And the freedom movement or democracy movement from many universities started in 1986 or 1987. Then finally in 1989 the Tiananmen Massacre happened. So the whole policy became more hard-line - harder. So our contact with the Chinese Government then became difficult. But officially still we have some communication. Then in 1993 the contact completely ceased. Then in the beginning of 2000 through some Chinese businessmen, or some individual Chinese initiative, eventually we renewed direct contact with the Chinese Government. So up to now, there have been five meetings or round-table talks with Chinese officials. The atmosphere of the meetings themselves, from the first, second, third, fourth, to the fifth has improved; there is more detail, more frank discussions. The discussion itself seems useful. There has been some progress. But then unfortunately the situation inside Tibet - as a result of the replacement of the Party Secretary - the policy inside Tibet has hardened. The suppression has much increased. The restrictions have much increased, including shooting at the Nepal border. One innocent person has been killed and people were injured. Some young students were arrested. It is like that. This is known world wide.

We usually call our approach the ‘middle way’ - at present there is no autonomy inside Tibet. Autonomy is meaningless. Every decision is in the hands of Han Chinese who have no idea about Tibetan culture, about the Tibetan environment or anything about Tibet. They don’t know. Their only concern is that Tibet might separate [from China], that’s their only concern. So therefore one previous Party Secretary, in another example of hardliner thinking, at a party meeting he mentioned that the source of the danger of Tibetan separation from China is the Tibetan Buddhist faith. So this is, I think, a wrong view. Nowadays there are many Buddhists among the Chinese – I think there are now around a million Chinese already following Tibetan Buddhism. That does not create a danger of separation. If Tibetans were treated well and there was respect for Tibetan culture and Tibetan Buddhism, it would give some sort of happier feeling among Tibetans. So therefore those Chinese really look at all aspect of Tibet as something dangerous or something backward and therefore they don’t want any more of these things. So that is why it creates a lot of sadness, a lot of resentment among Tibetans. So the present policy is really not helpful to solve this problem.

Then on the other hand, [the issue of] independence, as I mentioned earlier, emotionally, yes, many young Tibetans, including the youth organisations, they are very critical about our approach. They also criticise about me. They consider me a really weak Dalai Lama. So, since six years - and also I made very clear they can choose whatever they want. ‘If you disagree with our approach that is absolutely right, that is absolutely okay. We are fully committed to democracy – any criticism is most welcome. However, you should make a systematic program. If you really want independence, how are you going to achieve it? It is not easy’. So that is how I respond to their criticism, I tell them like that. So if they made some kind of realistic, practical proposal, then the majority of Tibetan people will support them. Okay. That’s the way things have changed in the exile government.

Recently I received a letter from some Tibetan youth. They expressed to me that they lost their faith so could I dissolve our exile government as well as our exile parliament. We do not want that way [of action]. I do not want to follow the behaviour of the Nepalese king, just dissolve [the parliament], certainly not. If they have really lost their trust then things will change through elections.  That is the way. Our middle way is not seeking independence, not staying with the present condition – we seek some meaningful autonomy which the constitution of the People’s Republic of China has provided. Now, that right should be implemented sincerely and fully on the spot. So that is the main meaning of the ‘middle way’ approach.

I think basically our approach is actually of mutual benefit theoretically speaking, it is a mutually agreeable solution. At a practical level, the present Chinese President, Hu Jintao, has very much emphasised the importance of harmony, so our proposal is the best way to achieve harmony and stability and unity.

Thank you.