Subscribe
"If the Tibetans were to choose the path of violence, he would have to resign because he is completely committed to nonviolence," [aide] Tenzin Taklha said. "He would resign as the political leader and head of state, but not as the Dalai Lama. He will always be the Dalai Lama."
If the Tibetans were to choose the path of violence, he would have to resign because he is completely committed to nonviolenceWhy did he not resign back when he was in command of an army that was violently resisting his usurpation from his position of unilateral power?
« Older Amsterdam plan to legalize public sex in park... | Between 1981 and 1984, the fir... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
So, hey, guys. We're free now. What do you want to do this weekend?
Does the current Lama ascend to power? Do they hold elections? Does the Lama resign because he wanted "cultural independence" rather than open rebellion? What happens to the landscape of trade? How will a free Tibet fare economically? Maybe all of these are resolved based on whatever government Tibet used to have and so on but I'm completely uninformed and would love to learn more.
posted by Eideteker at 9:30 AM on March 19