Archive for March, 2013

Tibet’s Passive Non-Violence vs Gandhi’s Active Non-Violence. post incomplete.

March 19, 2013

This post is similar to the one I wrote before titled, “The Tibetan Freedom Struggle in contrast with Gandhi’s Way of BE THE CHANGE.”, but with a slightly different touch. Hence, I felt the need to write about the bit different perspective from my previous post. It dawned on me when I was thinking about having a different title for the previous post ‘cos the old title was bit too long for my liking. So, when I did come up with something, it didn’t match fully with the content and I had to leave the old title as it is. Hence, I felt that the new post was needed that would match with the new title.

Everybody has a general idea of what passive and active means. The difference between passivity and activity is that the former is more of a laidback approach whereas the latter is more of intense and action oriented with a direct approach.

In Tibet’s case, there are actions happening like the request(not demand) for autonomy and the dialogue process, the numerous protests and begging from the International Community(IC), but these are not a direct approach of tackling the issue, the grave issue of sovereignty. The International Community(IC) is like a third party in the matters between Tibet and China. Therefore, dealing with China is called a direct approach, not with the IC.

Gandhi never dealt with third party. he dealt head on with British empire, though the British law was just and neutral and he was relying on it, but not by much. I would like to think that he relied more on himself than anybody. He relied more on his immense inner strengths.

Advertisements