Resistance by fire: Constructing political subjectivity through self-immolation

FINAL_10.17.11.tibet.yian
Yian Shang/Staff

Viktor Frankl wrote, “What is to give light must endure burning.”

The bodies of youth in Asia are burning in acts of protest. What is the message? Not just whatever slogan bystanders may have heard them articulate, but what message is being spoken in this act as an event? What do these acts signify? What might they produce? And what is required of us in order to truly listen? For in an era when messages are instantaneously, voicelessly transmitted, there is a kind of learning and listening that must be acquired, in order to apprehend the spirit and significance of this message.

On March 17, 21-year-old Tibetan monk Lobsang Phuntsok set fire to himself outside Kirti monastery, located in Ngaba county in China’s Sichuan province. His act was followed by a monk from nearby Kardze Monastery self-immolating and subsequently dying in August, as well as a string of self-immolations in the past month, where six Tibetan monks age 17 to 19 ­— again of Kirti Monastery — have set fire to themselves. All were arrested before dying, according to Tibetan exile sources, and two later died. The whereabouts and conditions of the other four are unknown.

Phuntsok’s actions set off a month-long siege of Kirti monks and Tibetan residents of Ngaba by Chinese forces, where phone lines were cut off and tourists were banned as residents and monks engaged in massive peaceful protests. According to an assessment by Human Rights Watch cited in the New York Times last week, 300 monks were reportedly sent to “re-education through labor” camps as a result of their standoff with authorities ­— there are 2,000 fewer monks at Kirti now, compared to the total number in March, a disappearance attributed to similar detention camps.

Although self-immolating may be a recent, relatively unprecedented phenomena among Tibetans, monastic or otherwise, it takes place against a long history of protest and resistance to colonialism. While it is not possible to pin the origins of self-immolation as protest on a religious or cultural disposition, that it arises out of an unbearable circumstance of political and social injustice is unmistakable.

In 1965, monk and activist Thich Nhat Hanh wrote, “The Vietnamese monk, by burning himself, says with all his strength and determination that he can endure the greatest of sufferings to protect his people. What he really aims at is the expression of his will and determination, not death. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction – i.e., to suffer and to die for the sake of one’s people.”

The self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc during the Vietnam War in protest of the treatment of Buddhists under South Vietnam’s Diem regime (widely supported by the U.S. for its anti-communist stance) caused several other monks to follow his example and is seen as marking the turning point of the crisis faced by Vietnamese Buddhists that led to the toppling of the regime. In December 2010, Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation became a catalyst for revolution, setting off demonstrations across the country.

I cannot guess at what these acts in Tibet might bring about. Unlike the example of Tunisia, Tibetans are viewed as a minority “other” in China, and so it seems unlikely that political acts by them would influence political actions among the Han Chinese majority, as they arise out of a particular set of conditions. However, Tibetans are not the only source of minority unrest in China. The Uighur population has been protesting for decades, the 2009 Urumqi protests receiving widespread media attention in China and elsewhere.

The self-immolation of young monks in Tibet is not a case of making a spectacle out of death. There is a fire burning under the land of snows, but although it ends life, it has the potential to be life-giving many times over. I remember the words of an old Tibetan folk song, used by Tibetan prisoners to convey the good news of the Dalai Lama’s safe flight to India without alarming their guards: “The snow has fallen, but don’t be sad. After the snowfall comes the warmth of the sun.”

If we listen closely, we can hear what is being whispered in this message, even if we do not yet know its effects — the voices of all those suffering under oppression, seeking freedom from those enemies known as intolerance, fanaticism, hatred and discrimination. As we listen to this particular act of witnessing by young Tibetans, we can rise to the challenge of making sense of an action that is, at its heart, anything but senseless.

I recall the historic letter in which Thich Nhat Hanh reached out to a member of another oppressed people, African-American reverend and activist Martin Luther King, Jr. In it, Thich responds to the question, “Why does he have to burn himself to death?” by refining our perception of the action from a position of seeing only a destructive end to one that turns its gaze back upon the movement itself. In so doing, we may arrive at a deeper understanding of what is being generated by these acts.

More than 40 years later, his answer is just as discerning: “The importance is not to take one’s life, but to burn.”

Tenzin Mingyur Paldron is a Ph.D. student in the department of rhetoric at UC Berkeley.

  • Earnest

    Thank you for clarifying and bringing more attention!  I completely agree!

  • Seer of Things

    The problem with self-immolation is that it’s a gesture you can only perform once.  And doing so deprives any resistance movement of a potentially influential actor.  Setting yourself on fire will not protect anyone–in fact, it robs others of the protection you could have extended to them as a living person.

    As far as the effect that ritualized suicide can have on oppressors–I’ll have to remain agnostic on that one.  I’m not convinced that people who brutalize others are going to be struck with a sudden case of conscience just because one of their subjects sets himself on fire.

    • Earnest

      “Seer of Things” i DI-agree with you in everyway.  Debating about whether it’s a good strategy or not is besides the point.  Are you suggesting that these Tibetan monks are brutalizing others?  Because I know that the VAST majority of the world would disagree with you on that.  I wonder where your point of view is really deriving from.  And where your apparent ‘allegience’ is towards.  They aren’t taking the lives of others by control, torture, and war like their oppressors are. Compassion, my friend, is not about agreement about strategy but seeing what oppression is pushing people to make the ultimate sacrifice-their own life.  

      • Seer of Things

        You’re confused, Earnest.  People who brutalize others = the government of the PRC (in this instance).  Their subjects = the people of China & Tibet.  I’m all for Tibetan home rule, even independence, but I don’t think committing a spectacular suicide is going to affect the rulers of your country with a sudden attack of remorse–given that those rulers have shown no hesitation to commit acts of torture, horrific medical “experiments”, and mass murder on the subject population. 

        And the above explanation would have been completely unnecessary if you’d learn to bloody read.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

          How come you can make so much sense here yet come off like a foaming nutjob elsewhere on this site?

          • Seer of Things

            You happen to agree with me here, which is fine, and disagree with me elsewhere, which is also fine.  Not everyone who disagrees with your politics is a foaming nutjob, Tony.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            I never suggested such a think, but your vitriol on a number of issues is indicative that you have some “issues”…

          • Seer of Things

            There’s only one orthodoxy I claim, and it’s nothing to do with political correctness. 

        • Tsering

          I believe the act of self immolation, like the author states, is about expressing to the people who will heed the gravity of the situation that led one to such an act. It doesn’t necessarily have to move the hearts of the party members. Its objective is not to gain sympathy from the leaders. 
          Although I do agree to a certain degree about the usefulness of a person who is alive rather than dead. I still think that what these selfless monks did, shows the world that they are helpless under the Chinese regime and they probably thought they would make a greater impact towards change and getting help from the world by sacrificing their own lives. Such is the case and the sad state of the current era.

  • Guest

    “What he really aims at is the expression of his will and determination, not death.”
    Then he should have let the oppressors kill him.  As you point out, the Chinese authorities responded to his suicide by imposing harsh penalties on thousands of others.

    • Kathleen

      Why are you talking about someone’s death like this?  Where is your humanity when speaking about someone’s act for collective preservation?  Are you commenting to Thich Nhat Hanh or to the author? 
      Collective punishment (harsh penalties on a thousands of others) always happens in any struggle for independence.  Should individual Indians not rebelled against England? Are you really blaming this monk for China’s violence?
      What is your point with this thoughtless comment?

      • Anonymous

        Gosh, after reading all this, I am really concerned.

      • Guest

        “What is your point with this thoughtless comment?”
        My point is that he can invoke suffering on himself, but he has no right to impose it on others.  And speaking of thoughless comments, I’m glad you can be so blase about harsh penalties inflicted on thousands of others.  Some of them actually might have wanted to live without torment.  By the way, Gandhi’s resisters were not suicidal and would never have implicated people who did not volunteer to incur punishments.

        • Tsetop74

          Phuntsok did not bring upon suffering upon others. This shows a total lack of understanding of the local history and politics there. The Tibetans there have been living through ‘hell’ as they put it ever since the Chinese communists ‘liberated them’  in 1949-1950.  If you do not understand the history and local situation, its best not to say anything.

          • Guest

            If you’re saying that the monk could not have known the Chinese would retaliate harshly against Tibetans because they had never done so before, I don’t believe you.  He chose to provoke mass punishments by his suicide.  It would have been more humane and effective for him to confront the Chinese himself and force them to murder him.

          • Tsering

            Your argument for the monks to not have self immolated themselves and instead ask the Chinese to kill them  is stupid and ignorant. The very fact that the Tibetans in the area resisted and tried to protect the monastery when the police came to take the monks away, knowingly incurring wrath on themselves is proof that the Tibetan people are willing to suffer in order to have their voices heard and their aspirations realized. Yes, the news might be about the brave monks and nun who gave their life for the cause of freedom, but don’t forget that Tibetans in general are willing to sacrifice, if not to the extreme level of self-immolation, at least to a point where they will suffer in order to alleviate their oppressed situation.

          • Guest

            So the Chinese punished only the Tibetans who actively resisted them?

          • Kathleen

            Thanks for your comment! 

        • Tsetop74

          And yet, Gandhi decided to take his life on a number of occasions through fasting. What’s the difference? Your take is typical of the strategy of blaming the victims.

          • Guest

            Gandhi was never suicidal.  He could have ended his life quickly by ceasing to drink water, but he didn’t.  Gandhi’s intent was to display his suffering as proof of his abhorrence of injustice.  He didn’t want to die, and he didn’t want others to die.

  • Nelson Sim

    As a Buddhist myself I abhor such acts of self immolation.  These are senseless acts , more so when the ones involved are just past teen age.  Do they know exactly what they are doing?  You can bet there are a lot more clergy out there whom are much older and will not even consider sacrificing themselves as such.  Such acts borders on violence and it is akin to terrorism.  Setting yourself on fire is no difference to a human bomb, the difference is you kill yourself.  And that is not part of the teachings of Buddha.

  • Chhido

    I tjink what a lot of people do not realise is that the situation in Tibet cannot be compared with Gandhis situation. Gandhi had a audience. The western press were there. The British were too liitel and spread out to really prevent large protests. Gandhi might have been imprisoned but would have been let out soon. In Tibet you probably got few minutes to protest and then you would be imprisoned tortured and possibly killed and they wouldnt have to answer to anyone. This non violent has been going on for the past 30 years. There are thousands imprisoned and tortured for something as just refusing to denounce the dalai lama or mentioning Independence. Isnt this act a sign of desperation especially coming from a buddhist which holds the killing of oneself as a sin worse than killing others. So they are willingly taking upon themselves this sin and thereby sending a message and at the same time not taking others lives.

  • Kawakarpo

    Om ma ni pe me hung