In the past week Laura and I have watched both Kundun (about the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the Dalai Lama) and Gandhi. We enjoyed both films, but they brought up some interesting questions for me.

Gandhi’s practice of non-violence to drive out the British was inspiring, but I couldn’t help but wonder if it would work in a situation like Tibet’s. The primary reasons Gandhi’s tactics worked were that the British had no stomach for large scale massacres and they governed based on the rule of law. In Mao’s China at the time of the Tibetan invasion, neither of these factors were true. The Chinese people were in no position to protest the treatment of their neighbors in Tibet and totalitarian rule allowed no channel for addressing injustices. It seems likely that had the Tibetans employed tactics like Gandhi and his followers, Mao’s army would have been obliged to kill them one by one. Still, it seems that the Tibetans would have fared no better if they had engaged the Chinese in large scale battle. They would have probably been slaughtered.

I found two good articles on this subject. The first article is from the Central Tibetan Administration which seems to be the Tibetan government headed by the Dalai Lama. It compares the Tibet’s struggle with Palestine’s and contrasts the tactics used by each nation. The second article comes from a Tibetan in exile. It challenges that Gandhi was completely devoted to non-violence in every situation and points out that the Dalai Lama owes his life to the Tibetans that fought the Chinese as he escaped to India in 1959. Clearly, adherence to non-violence is not as simple as one might think.

After my short investigation, it seems that a non-violence is still the best approach. There is a danger of bloodshed in battle just as there was when Gandhi challenged the British. Had the Tibetans fought against China and lost they might have lost their country and culture forever. By taking a less violent approach they may have bought themselves time until China is ready to accept reason as the British finally did. At least Tibet has the international community on its side, something Palestine would benefit from immensely.

Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye would make the whole world go blind.” One need only look to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to see the truth in his words. Tibet may not be free, but neither are they mired in a horrific cycle of violence that destabilizes an entire region.

My problem with non-violence comes in issues of self-defense or defense of loved ones, but from that argument isn’t defense of my home and country self-defense? It seems to be a slippery slope to “defensive” wars abroad like the one in Iraq that was argued to be in preventative self-defense, whatever that might mean. I am very interested in other viewpoints on this topic and would love to hear from our readers. These are very complex issues that I don’t have figured out yet. If anyone has any ideas of their own or can point me toward some good books or articles I would be very appreciative.