What the Dalai Lama did to a child appals and deserves our condemnation

The case of “His Holiness” the Dalai Lama kissing a young boy on the lips and then asking him to suck his tongue is one of the most perplexing — not a word I use liberally — and disappointing incidents to happen this year.

I use the word disappointing because, invariably, those who are elevated beyond mere mortal status and let it go to their heads are doomed to come crashing down on the mean streets of mortality.

The Dalai Lama is revered the world over and has been elevated to divine status. This affords him great influence and immense power, which one would think would be wielded responsibly. He is hallowed for being a spiritual leader and, above all, a champion for peace and nonviolence, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 for his tireless efforts in this regard.

Personally, I have issues with anyone being made a god and seen as a superhuman of sorts, because it often creates a damaging inequality divide and tempts people to think they are accountable to no one and can do as they please.

The response to the incident has been mixed, with many people being reluctant to engage. It seems to me that the reason people seem ill at ease with calling out the behaviour unequivocally is because of the Dalai Lama’s divine status and the belief that he is beyond reproach. The truth is he is not. No one is, and this incident has shown that. What he did is wrong and we need to sanction it in the same way we would anyone else who is not considered divine. This is not so much to punish him but for the protection of that little boy and other little boys and girls who may find themselves in similar positions.

It frightens me to think that we would defend the reprehensible actions of an adult, instead of prioritising and trying to repair the feelings of betrayal, embarrassment and trauma of the child. All the child asked for was a hug before a kiss was imposed on him without consent, and then was asked to “suck my tongue”.

The bigger conversation here is the inconsistent application of the standard of morality and sanction based on a person’s status. For a proponent of nonviolence, the Dalai Lama certainly and quite clearly violated that young child, using the unequal power dynamic that he holds over not only the child, but also those who revere him. This was also evidenced by those in attendance not jumping to the child’s defence but merely laughing and looking on.

The feeble apology offered by the Dalai Lama stated that he would like to apologise to the child and his family and regrets the hurt his words may have caused. It also said: “His Holiness often teases people he meets in an innocent and playful way, even in public and before cameras.”

The apology is irrelevant. What is relevant is why he did it or thought it was appropriate to do that to a young, impressionable child in a room full of adults and media. We can only be grateful that the incident happened in a public forum and forced an admittance of wrongdoing.

This moment offers an opportunity to look at our prejudices and re-evaluate our positions on who we choose to protect and why. DM168

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R25.