Heinrich Hauff/Dorje Shugden
When Sweden’s Democrats, an extreme right-wing political party with a white nationalist agenda gained a significant win to become the deal-maker who would form the next government of Sweden, the entire European community braced itself for an outpouring of extremist views.
Europe was already in the grip of a tense situation. Yet a very provocative statement was made from a totally unlikely source, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, who should have known better than to create even more problems for the Europeans. Only three days after Sweden’s election results, the Dalai Lama, at the start of his European tour in Malmo, Sweden, spoke publicly about how “Europe is for Europeans”. This has since ignited debates that have been raging for nearly two weeks with no signs of dissipation.
With the now infamous ultranationalistic and racist statement, the Dalai Lama revealed how far removed he is from current global affairs and how ignorant he is about the tragedies that have struck the Afghan people and other afflicted groups who have since become reluctant refugees. This is not to mention the disasters that have visited the people of Somalia, Eritrea and those under the Assad and other totalitarian regimes. If the Dalai Lama does not have his finger on the pulse of global affairs, it is only proper for him to refrain from speaking on inflammatory socio-political topics. Especially seeing how he had caused a furore with his remarks on Indian political issues just a month prior. This is especially so given the fact that he has utterly failed to solve the Tibetan refugee problem even after 60 years in exile. Shouldn’t the Dalai Lama focus on solving his own problems instead of creating new ones for the Europeans?
The need for the Dalai Lama to not be issuing political statements couldn’t be any more apparent especially when innocent lives are at stake. For these refugees fleeing their homeland, the conditions in their countries of origin are far from being resolved and are unlikely to be in the near future. To send refugees back to situations where they would face mortal peril is tantamount to signing their death sentence. In addition, what exactly does the Dalai Lama mean when he speaks of their eventual return? And when? In five years? Ten? How arbitrary and miscalculated all that is.
As a monk with neither formal education nor training in politics, the blunders the Dalai Lama has made have had wide-reaching consequences, especially when parties manipulate them with harmful agendas. The bottom line is this – for the Dalai Lama to be making statements that stoke Islamophobia, he is carelessly disregarding human lives.
Theo Horesh, the author of the article, “The Dalai Lama Owes An Apology” published in the Elephant Journal, could not help but note the irony:
“The Dalai Lama is himself a refugee who cannot return home without fearing for his life, but he doubled down when asked to clarify his remarks the next day. Perhaps he did not recognize the way his words were being used, or else he simply misspoke. But it is unlikely, given that he is the head of state to a nation in exile and a perceptive thinker who chooses his words carefully.”
Even though popular opinion may place the Dalai Lama as a veteran statesman who saved his people from genocide, it is time to ask what this Nobel Peace Prize winner has really achieved. To begin with, what has the Dalai Lama done to really help the people of Syria, for example, when they were torn apart by war and before they were forced to become refugees? What has the Dalai Lama done to help afflicted countries such as the African nations find peaceful resolutions to the violent disputes that have plagued them? Most relevantly, what has the Dalai Lama done to resolve the Tibetan refugee crisis? (if we can even call it a crisis in this day and age)Tibet is still a part of the People’s Republic of China and there is no sign of the Dalai Lama ever regaining sovereignty over his own homeland.
The Dalai Lama himself is still a refugee.
The Dalai Lama’s subjects in exile are still refugees. What’s more, Tibetan refugees have also sought to make Europe their home. So it is not only those who fled from war-torn Syria that make up Europe’s refugee population but also Tibetan refugees who contribute to the concerns of the Europeans. Why the Dalai Lama did not address his own people and demand that they are repatriated from Europe is a mystery. After all, they have been there much longer than any other refugees.
There is no progress with the Middle Way Approach to seek autonomy within China. In fact, all dialogue with China came to a grinding halt many years ago.
Truth be told, the Tibetan people are more hopeless today than they were in 1959 and the Tibetan refugee population who continue to trust and rely on the Dalai Lama’s government is only about half the number in diaspora. The rest seem to have taken matters into their own hands. Shouldn’t the Dalai Lama demonstrate that he can ably solve the Tibetan people’s issues before meddling with Europe’s migrant problems?
For this former head of the Tibetan government-in-exile, the past 60 years have presented countless opportunities to resolve the Tibetan refugee crisis. China’s rise as a global superpower could have meant a slew of benefits for the Tibetan people, but instead of placing emphasis on building relations with the Chinese government, the Dalai Lama directs his attention to everywhere else but China.In his article, Horesh also displays extraordinary astuteness in his observation of why the Dalai Lama’s Islamophobic statement is ridiculous. He gives the hypothetical example of a Syrian immigrant who has carved a new life in an adoptive country for the past 10 years – his new wife is Turkish, his children are German, and his business is located in Berlin. How can you repatriate such a person back to a country that he and his wife and children have no cultural connection with? How can you ask them to unravel their lives all over again and agree to be alienated one more time just because the Dalai Lama said so?
If we were to go along with the Dalai Lama’s philosophy on refugees returning to develop their home countries, then the question that begs asking is, when will Tibetans-in-exile in Europe and North America be returning to Tibet? What about the Tibetans who have taken foreign partners and those in families with children of mixed race? Are they to reject their new found homes where they have lived for the majority of their lives to simply return to Tibet? After being in Europe for so many decades, many Tibetans are merely Tibetan in name, but culturally they are not. Will these Tibetans who have absorbed decades of foreign culture just transplant themselves and integrate instantly in Tibet, China? Or is the Dalai Lama’s philosophy only for Muslims? If not, why doesn’t it apply to Tibetans too?
Whether knowingly, or as some allege, unknowingly, the Dalai Lama stoked racist and negative religious sentiments with his irrational statement. This is another sign that as a Buddhist monk, he should not involve himself with European politics as his lack of knowledge in political affairs can be used to hurt other people. It is a glaring revelation that the Tibetan leader lacks in education, exposure and history.
“Like all identities, Europeanness is a mental construction. There is no essence to it; rather, it is what we make it. And the more expansive our idea of it, the more inclusive it can be of the people actually living in it.”
Theo Horesh is brilliant in saying that identities such as ‘Europeanness’ are a mental construction. Of all people, the Dalai Lama who champions Buddhist teachings on subjects like the inherent emptiness of all phenomena, should already know this. Yet, the Dalai Lama conveniently forgets that Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia are three countries in Europe that are also Muslim states. Even Turkey is predominantly Muslim. All of these three Muslim countries are not recent inclusions in the European Union, and therefore the Dalai Lama’s statement on Muslims not being a part of Europe, and on how Europe is for Europeans is another shout out of his ignorance. But more to the point, shouldn’t a spiritual leader promote tolerance and pluralistic views? If our concept of personal and national identities can be broadened to be more inclusive, then clearly there is a better chance for people to live together in harmony.
Ultimately, the false identity of Europe for Europeans is a very negligent and damaging statement from someone such as the Dalai Lama who is regarded as a “seasoned politician”. Given that this statement has drastically decreased respect for the popular Tibetan leader worldwide, then perhaps the Dalai Lama who is the most famous refugee in the world, as Horesh says, should apologise.