Dalai Lama: Relic or revolutionary?

A colleague and friend was asked to write an opinion piece on whether the Dalai Lama was relevant in the greater political scheme of things. I was quite surprised by his stand. He brilliantly argued that the religious leader is the “only universally recognised leader, who in a violent world, espouses unqualified non-violence — not only as a way of life, but also as a means of political struggle”. But I disagree.
Yes, the Dalai Lama is synonymous with peace and peaceful protest, but it’s done Tibet little good. My colleague writes: If tomorrow the Dalai Lama gives his stamp of approval to a Tibetan version of the jihad, make no mistake, every single Tibetan alive on this planet would happily turn into a suicide bomber — all millions of them.
And all million of them will be squashed like pesky insects. An armed conflict will have little impact — not against the great Chinese machine that thinks nothing of quelling dissonance with a swift and effective blow. History has repeatedly proved that, and Tibet would be steamrollered and flattened under a brutal force that thinks nothing of sacrificing human life for what it perceives to be the greater good.
As the world panders to China — they cannot afford to do otherwise — the Dalai Lama is seen more as a benevolent, harmless leader of a religion that preaches the Middle Path. Even his followers are rebelling — they want their leader to be more assertive, to speak up for their rights.
But in an attempt to find that elusive Middle Path, the Dalai Lama has in many ways given up the good fight. Even now, he’s supportive of China hosting the Olympics. Even when the Tibetan culture is being threatened by the influx of Chinese migrants, even as the world wishes to pretend otherwise, the Dalai Lama does not react. Yes, in the world of morals and values, he is a leader. But in a brutal world where power is revered and respected, Tibet is nothing more than a fly in the greater scheme of things.
The Dalai Lama’s soft voice will be drowned in the clamor and chaos. In a few days, our attention will shift to another part of the world – Kosovo, Zimbabwe, Burma – take your pick. And the Dalai Lama will continue with his peaceful way of life, looking for the middle path. He knows that. Why else would he say that he is helpless? Why else would he say: “I'm a spokesman for the Tibetan people, not the controller, not the master. It's a peoples' movement, so it's up to them. Whatever they do, I have to act accordingly”?
Maybe the leader despairs, knowing that neither a violent nor peaceful protest will save his homeland.