The Dalai Lama, a tireless advocate for Tibet and its people
Dalai Lama's peaceful advocacy for Tibetans has earned him respect worldwide
*
He may say more about successor around his 90th birthday
*
China sees him as a dangerous separatist
By Krishna N. Das
DHARAMSHALA, India, - The Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism, has often called himself a simple monk, but for more than 60 years armed with little more than charm and conviction, he has managed to keep the cause of his people in the international spotlight.
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, fled into exile in India in 1959 with thousands of other Tibetans after a failed uprising against Chinese rule. Since then, he has advocated for a non-violent "Middle Way" to seeking autonomy and religious freedom for Tibetan people, gaining the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.
He has met with scores of world leaders, while inspiring millions with his cheerful disposition and views on life such as "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
But his popularity irks China which views him as a dangerous separatist, with one former Communist Party boss describing him as "a jackal" and having "the heart of a beast".
The Dalai Lama turns 90 on Sunday, a particularly important birthday as he has flagged that he may say more about a potential successor around then. Tibetan tradition holds that the soul of a senior Buddhist monk is reincarnated in the body of a child upon his death.
In a book, "Voice for the Voiceless", published earlier this year, he said Tibetans worldwide want the institution of the Dalai Lama to continue after his death and specified that his successor would be born in the "free world", which he described as outside China.
The statements were his strongest yet about the likelihood of a successor. In previous years, he has also said that his successor might be a girl and it is possible that there might be no successor at all.
He has, however, stated that any successor chosen by China, which has piled pressure on foreign governments to shun him, will not be respected.
FLIGHT INTO EXILE
The Dalai Lama was born Lhamo Dhondup in 1935 to a family of buckwheat and barley farmers in what is now the northwestern Chinese province of Qinghai. At the age of two, he was deemed by a search party to be the 14th reincarnation of Tibet's spiritual and temporal leader after identifying several of his predecessor's possessions.
China took control of Tibet in 1950 in what it called "a peaceful liberation" and the teenage Dalai Lama assumed a political role shortly after, travelling to Beijing to meet Mao Zedong and other Chinese leaders. Nine years later, fears that the Dalai Lama could be kidnapped fuelled a major rebellion.
The subsequent crackdown by the Chinese army forced him to escape disguised as a common soldier from the palace in Lhasa where his predecessors had held absolute power.
The Dalai Lama fled to India, settling in Dharamshala, a Himalayan town where he lives in a compound next to a temple ringed by green hills and snow-capped mountains. There, he opened up his government-in-exile to ordinary Tibetans with an elected parliament.
Disillusioned with how little he had gained from his efforts to engage with Beijing, he announced in 1988 that he had given up on seeking full independence from China, and instead would be seeking cultural and religious autonomy within China.
In 2011, the Dalai Lama announced he would relinquish his political role, handing over those responsibilities to an elected leader for the Tibetan government-in-exile.
But he remains active and these days, the Dalai Lama, clad in his customary maroon and saffron robes, continues to receive a constant stream of visitors.
He has had a number of health problems, including knee surgery and walks with difficulty. Despite that, he expects to live for a long time yet.
"According to my dream, I may live 110 years," he told Reuters in December.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
What unites India: Balancing the sacred and secular
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated August 20, 2007)Ever since India became independent there have been Jeremiahs prophesying that it will fall apart. With each crisis India has faced during the 60 turbulent years of its Independence, their dismal voices have risen only for them to be proved false appalling violence of Partition appeared to threaten the unity of India from the start. But then those who feared that the desire to take revenge on Muslims for Partition would lead to an unsustainable militant Hindu state found that the shock of Gandhi's assassination brought India back to its senses. There was the trouble over language, wisely as it turned out, resolved by the creation of linguistic states. Many thought that was a recipe for disintegration, but they have been proved Nehru's later days, the nervous question asked over and over again, was 'After Nehru who?' During the Chinese war, Nehru himself, who had done so much to establish a stable India, feared that Assam would be lost when the Chinese invaded. Assam and the rest of the North-East is still with India and Lal Bahadur Shastri followed by Indira Gandhi gave a resounding reply to the doubters who had asked 'After Nehru who?' During Indira Gandhi's Emergency, many prophesied the end of Indian democracy, and I, for one, believe that it would have broken India because it can only be held together if it's ruled with a fairly light rein, which only democracy can do. But then Indira confounded the prophets of doom by calling for an election and accepting defeat. This has been the hallmark of Indian democracy—the acceptance of the voters' decision, and the peaceful transfer of power. So many countries have been destabilised by governing parties refusing to accept defeat at the India entered the era of coalition governments, there were plenty of people who said it could only be held together by strong one party governments. The economic reforms, which at last broke the stranglehold of the 'licence permit raj', and freed the creative energies of so many Indian entrepreneurs, were introduced by a government which on paper looked very weak. The destruction of the mosque in Ayodhya was seen by many in India and abroad as the end of Indian secularism and the beginning of religious strife which would turn the country into a Lebanon or a Northern Ireland. But that was nearly 15 years ago now and India is still a secular country. Gujarat in 2002 can now be seen as another aberration, a serious one too but not one that has threatened the unity of this is not to say that Gujarat or Ayodhya should be dismissed lightly. I have always felt that India is like a great ocean liner which sometimes gets tossed about by mighty storms and tempestuous seas, and seems on the verge of capsizing, but somehow always rights herself and goes on her way. Perhaps as a result of this, there seems to be a widespread belief that India can ride out of any storm, and so no one bothers to take protections even when the black clouds are building remains committed to the 'chalne do' philosophy. For me one of the most striking examples of this attitude is the failure of successive governments to take stern action against those who threaten secularism by propagating hatred of religions other than their is it that holds India together? It could be the very fact that has led many of those Jeremiahs to prophesy that it will disintegrate—its size and in particular its diversity. I remember once suggesting to Indira Gandhi that it must be very difficult to govern a country as large and as diverse as India and she replied, 'I think it would be much harder to govern a smaller country.'She then went on to explain how India's diversity was its strength. 'When there is trouble in Bengal', she explained, 'the rest of the country just gets on with life as usual, and even when there is trouble in the capital Delhi, it doesn't have a pan-Indian impact.' Of course, there have been times, such as the riots after Ayodhya, when the trouble spread well beyond one state, but even then the riots did not engulf the whole of Gandhi's remarks reminded me of a broadcast by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto at the start of the movement against him in 1977. Speaking with even more than his usual emotion, he said he knew that his opponents would get someone killed in police firing in Lahore and take the body through the bazaar, do the same in Karachi, and so set the whole country on fire. Banging the arms of his chair he said 'But this chair is strong, this chair is strong, and I will not allow it to happen.' The prime minister's chair was not strong enough and Bhutto was dethroned. That is the problem of a smaller institutions which are meant to defend their countries from external enemies, often become the enemies of their own people. On the pretext of restoring stability they destabalise their countries. India has been singularly fortunate in having an apolitical army which has never threatened the civilian government. The army must be given full credit for maintaining high standards of discipline which ensure that it obeys whatever orders it is given by the government. We must also give credit to politicians for not trying to persuade the army to intervene on their there is another factor too which militates against the army attempting to take power, and it is once again India's diversity. The army is a reflection of that diversity with officers and soldiers coming from all parts of the country. In such a diverse army it would be difficult for any one officer, no matter how senior, or any group of officers, to persuade the whole army to break its disciplined tradition and overthrow the civilian for me perhaps the most important factor in holding India together is what Ashish Nandy has called its salad bowl culture. India has a unique ability to allow different cultures and different religions to live side-by-side, retaining their own identity. Recently I was in Varanasi where the well-known Mahant of the Sankat Mochan temple, Veer Bhadra Mishra, told me about his childhood when Hindus and Muslims in his village would attend each others' weddings and festivals, but the hosts would provide separate food for their would be anathema to many in these days when the common belief seems to be that we should have a soup culture in which everyone is mixed up and all lose their individual identity. This is considered to be egalitarian, but then egalitarians sometimes forget that we never have been—nor is there any sign we ever will be—equal, or indeed the Bhadra Mishra is a bit of a Jeremiah himself. He said to me, 'Hindus and Muslims were living very happily together but that has come under threat because of politicians.' One of the greatest strengths of India is that the Hindu majority does still live together, peacefully for the most part, with the world's second largest Muslim population. There are those who would disturb the peace, some Muslim clergy and some Hindu preachers, as well as some politicians, but how successful are they? I was still the BBC correspondent at the time of Ayodhya and when the riots broke out; I was asked time and time again whether this was the end of India's secularism. I always used to reply, 'In my experience, in India things go up very rapidly but they come down again rapidly too.'For all the hatred spewed out by both sides at that time, millions of Muslims today still educate their children in their religion, go to mosques daily to say their prayers, and of course wear whatever clothes they believe their faith demands. When I am in Britain, I often tell people that it would be unthinkable for the vast majority of Indians to question a Muslim woman's right to wear a burqa, or a Sikh's right to wear a this does not mean that India should not take the threat of religious fundamentalism seriously, but to do that it also has to acknowledge the dangers of a certain type of secularism. The renowned religious writer Karen Armstrong, who was once a Roman Catholic nun, has written, 'fundamentalism exists in a symbiotic relationship with an aggressive liberalism or secularism, and, under attack, increasingly becomes more bitter, extreme, and excessive.'I do find that in India there are secularists who are so aggressive that they do not allow any room for religion in public, or indeed private life. This is not the same as the pseudo secularism that BJP leaders talk about. They are talking about their claim that undue preference is given to minorities. The secularism I am talking about fails to acknowledge the importance of religion in many, many people's lives, and the impossibility of drawing an absolute, hard and fast line, between the role of faith in private and public life. Mahatma Gandhi did not do that.I am sometimes made aware of this aggressive secularism when I am accused of supporting Hindutva just because I write about Hinduism. I firmly believe in Indian secularism but not in the sort of secularism which has no time and no respect for people's religion. I recently read of a report by Doudou Diene, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. In it, he criticised the spread of Christianophobia in Europe and urged the return to a correct balance of 'defending the secular and protecting religious freedom'.I detect in certain secular quarters in India a Hinduphobia, and if there is one threat I do see to the unity of India, it is not maintaining the balance Diene talks about. This surely means that the two national parties should realise they are in danger of forging the symbiotic relationship Armstrong described by continuing their shouting match between Hindutva and secularism.—The writer was the BBC's bureau chief in New Delhi for 22 years and has written several popular books on IndiaSubscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump drops bombshell: US is hacking China just like they are hacking us
During a Fox News interview with Maria Bartiromo, Trump made a shocking claim that the U.S. is also hacking China, not just the other way around. Bartiromo first said that China hacked U.S. telecom systems, stole intellectual property, fentanyl, and even caused COVID. She asked, 'How can you trust China in business if they do all this?' Trump replied, 'You don't think we do that to them? We do. We do a lot of things.' Bartiromo was stunned and asked, 'That's how the world works?' Trump answered, 'Yeah. It's a nasty world', as stated by Fox News . Trade and tariffs Trump said there's a huge trade deficit with China, and China is paying heavy tariffs. He claimed he had a great relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping despite the issues. Trump blamed Joe Biden for letting the trade deficit rise to $1 trillion, as mentioned in the report by Independent. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dhoni's Exclusive Home Interior Choice? HomeLane Get Quote Undo Trump said under his deal, tariffs on China were 145%, which 'stopped everything in China'. He claimed the U.S. 'did China a favor,' and that they're still getting along well. Trump insisted he could use more pressure on China, but only if he had to. Chinese nationals & pathogens Bartiromo said the U.S. just arrested 3 or 4 Chinese nationals trying to bring in a pathogen that could make people sick and destroy food, according to the report stated by Independent. Live Events Trump wasn't sure if the pathogen came from China officially or just crazy individuals. Bartiromo mentioned that one Chinese person signed a paper saying he valued Mao Zedong's system, as per reports. ALSO READ: Donald Trump drops bombshell: US is hacking China just like they are hacking us Rare earth minerals & business with China Bartiromo asked if China would stop forcing companies to give up info in return for access to rare earth minerals. Trump said companies shouldn't put themselves in that position. He said China now needs these companies more than before, as per the Independent report. Trump claimed many companies are now moving back to the U.S. He said China treated U.S. companies badly under Biden, but treats them better under Trump because they need them now. Past similar comment (Russia 2017) This China hacking comment reminded people of a 2017 interview where Trump said something similar about Russia. In that old interview, the host said Putin is a killer, but Trump replied, 'We've got a lot of killers too. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?', as stated by Fox News report. Trump said he respects many leaders, not necessarily likes them, and thinks it's better to get along with Russia if they help fight terrorism, as per the reports. FAQs Q1. Is the US really hacking China like China hacks the US? Yes, former President Donald Trump said the US does hack China, just like China hacks the US. He said 'that's how the world works' in an interview on Fox News. Q2. What did Trump say about US-China trade and tariffs? Trump said China pays big tariffs because of the US trade deal. He also said many companies are moving back to the US from China, and the trade deficit got worse under Joe Biden.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
US lawmakers raise alarm over data collection by OnePlus without users' permission: Report
Image for representation purpose Two U.S. lawmakers have asked the US Commerce Department to investigate Chinese smartphone maker OnePlus over alleged security concerns. According to a Reuters report, representatives John Moolenaar and Raja Krishnamoorthi sent a letter to the department raising concerns that OnePlus devices may be collecting sensitive user data without consent and sending it to China-owned servers. The letter claims that OnePlus smartphones may be gathering personal data, including "transfers of sensitive personal information and screenshots," without users' explicit permission. The lawmakers wrote, 'This investigation would determine the types of information being collected by OnePlus devices.' They cited a commercial analysis that reportedly found the data collection patterns and flagged them as potentially unsafe. The information, according to the lawmakers, 'indicates' that OnePlus may be sending this data to servers owned by entities in China. This isn't the first time the US government has raised red flags over Chinese tech companies. In 2020, Huawei faced federal charges including racketeering and intellectual property theft. The company received temporary relief from U.S. trade bans but continued to face scrutiny under national security laws. The TikTok controversy in 2022 followed a similar path, with officials accusing the app of sharing sensitive user data with its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. At the time, U.S. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr stated, 'It harvests swaths of sensitive data that new reports show is being accessed in Beijing.' The call to investigate OnePlus echoes ongoing concerns over how Chinese-owned tech firms handle U.S. consumer data and whether that data could be accessed by foreign governments. Apple iOS 26: Top 5 iOS 26 Features You NEED to See! AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
