With a strong but carefully worded statement issued via email on 09 November 2011, the Karmapa became the first Tibetan leader to unambiguously appeal to fellow Tibetans not to destroy their lives by setting fire to themselves but to choose more constructive modes of protest. In the statement he said: "Each report of self-immolation from Tibet has filled my heart with pain". This bold and unexpected move, directed at the Tibetan people at large and international supporters, as well as to China's leaders, has projected him as a spiritual figurehead in the tradition of the Dalai Lama, albeit in an arena full of political pitfalls.

His Holiness Gyalwang Karmapa.

Although declaring: "In Buddhist teaching, life is precious", the Karmapa's statement does not primarily base its rationale in religion or ethics. Instead, he focuses on the potential, particularly for "the cause of Tibet", which a longer life would make possible. "To achieve anything worthwhile", he said, "we need to preserve our lives (...) every Tibetan life is of value (...) we need to live long and stay strong without losing sight of our long term goals". Those who died "had a long future ahead of them, an opportunity to contribute in ways that they have now foregone". "I request the people of Tibet to preserve their lives and find other, constructive ways to work for the cause of Tibet", he said.

He did his best to give his full backing to the Dalai Lama, whose words on the matter he echoed by describing the self-burnings as "desperate acts, carried out by people with pure motivation, (...) a cry against the injustice and repression under which they live". He emphasised, just as the Dalai Lama did, that "the Chinese leadership should face up to the real source of these tragic incidents". "I agree with him [the Dalai Lama] that the Chinese leadership needs seriously to review its policies towards Tibetans and other minorities". These were probably the sharpest words the Karmapa has addressed towards the PRC leadership who, so far, he has avoided criticising too harshly.

He took a further step by urging the Chinese leaders "to heed Tibetans' legitimate demands and to enter into meaningful dialogue with them instead of brutally trying to achieve their silence". His entreaty to "right-thinking, freedom-loving people throughout the world" to join "in deploring the repression unleashed in the monasteries in Tibet, particularly in the Tibetan region of Sichuan" should particularly upset China's leadership to whom any internationalisation of the troubles in Tibet is a thorn in their flesh.

Paradoxically, with these two appeals, the Karmapa seems likely to antagonise Beijing, although he has now done exactly what the Chinese authorities on 11 October denounced "the Dalai Lama clique" for not doing, namely "condemn[ing] this extreme behavior" by monks and nuns. "The Dalai Lama clique" had according to Beijing, "embellished and played it up", rousing "all kinds of people to follow the example", of what amounted to "masked violent terrorist behaviour".

Posed image of a burning monk.

But Tibetans and Tibet supporters, hailing those who had set themselves alight as martyrs and praising their nationalist heroism, might well object to the Karmapa's statement. Some previous statements by Tibet support groups idealised the self-immolations as beacons – referring to a burning monk as "Human torch" – or a political blaze, exhorting China "to extinguish the flames by bringing freedom to Tibet". They also circulated sometimes extremely graphic - posed and digitally manipulated - images of burning monks that for a while enjoyed even greater circulation than the few genuine photographs of the actual incidents. Tibetan exile advocates of Tibetan independence found the strongest expressions. Writer Jamyang Norbu, for instance, spoke about "igniting the embers of independence" and characterised the self-immolations of the young monks and nuns as "revolutionary acts of ultimate sacrifice to rouse the Tibetan people to action". The exile Tibetan website Purgyal proclaimed: "May their martyrdom remain immortal and glorious (...) and let it be an inspiration to all the young Tibetans (both in and outside Tibet) to live and die for Tibet". Such statements contrast with many Tibetan blogs inside China, which, though also conveying the news, were more circumspect in reporting the incidents. Consternation rather than celebration of their presumed heroism dominated these reports - there were hardly any calls for emulation there.

Inspired by the example of the Tunisian Mohammed Buazizi, whose self-immolation in early 2011 sparked regime change in Tunisia and with that the diverse Arab 'Jasmine Revolutions', many had wanted to see in the events in Tibet what the director of Students for Free Tibet (SFT) called "a breaking point". The director of the UK-based Free Tibet group, for example, saw unrest in Tibet as "escalating and widening", and argued "in the surrounding region (...) calls for wider protests" are "growing".

Burning Tibetan in Photoshop art.

In Asian-based exile communities and in the West, the series of suicides have also generated fierce competition among Tibetan NGOs and Western support groups. Names, details, alleged last words and the motivations of those who set themselves on fire have been hastily reported with the obvious intention of 'being first', and with little concern for accuracy, leading to contradictions and uncertainties that cannot be blamed on the Chinese authorities' restrictive information policy alone. There has been an unprecedented branding of reports, and claims of efficiency and ownership over information that would have once been considered indecent. There have even been undisguised pecuniary appeals. An example is a statement made by Free Tibet (once known as 'Campaign for a Free Tibet' and then as the 'Free Tibet Campaign'), saying: "We at Free Tibet will continue to do everything in our capacity to ensure the bravery of these Tibetans receives global attention. We have secured widespread international media coverage since March when the self-immolations started, including (...); Free Tibet's Director today was interviewed on Sky News. (...) We need you to add your voice to ours. Please join or donate today".

So far, the Karmapa has carefully avoided all political controversy among Tibetans and their supporters (and has only been mildly criticised by the Chinese authorities since his defection in 2000)(1). With his new and bold statement, however, he is likely to be confronted, like others before him, including the Dalai Lama, with accusations of stabbing the Tibetan resistance in the back(2), an accusation which the CTA has avoided by reiterating its general policy that it "does not encourage" protest inside Tibet, a stance which falls short of unambiguously discouraging it.

On the other hand, among more conservative sections of the Tibetan diaspora, the Karmapa's first major statement giving advice for Tibetans in general might be interpreted by some as encroaching into what has been thus far the Dalai Lama's prerogative, especially since all of the monks and nuns who burned themselves have belonged to the Gelugpa school and not the Karamapa's Kargyupa school.

Finally, despite the clearly humanitarian nature of his statement, there are those among the Indian establishment who might still construe the Karmapa's words as too political and who are very keen to prevent him becoming a figurehead like the Dalai Lama. That his statement corresponds to the demands of the Chinese authorities to expressively disapprove of the self-immolations might also feed the suspicions of conservative sections of the Indian security establishment who believe that he came to India as a Chinese agent rather than as a sincere refugee, an impression which opponents within his Karma-Kagyu school always proved keen to promote.

Notes:
1: Already in 04 October 2011, in an interview with Hanna Beech for Time, the Karmapa had expressed some, carefully worded, reservations. He expressed the dilemma felt by many Tibetans by saying, "Monks take a vow that says they are not allowed to end their lives" [...] "but on the other hand, these actions are not for an individual, they are for a people".
2: The Dalai Lama was charged by some in 2008 of taking away the vital power of the revolt by disapproving of violence and threatening resignation, as he allegedly did with the armed Tibetan Khampa resistance in the early 1970s.