The jade burned on the mountain retains its natural
colour,
The lotus, blooming in the furnace, does not lose its
freshness.[1]

In modern Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Lotus Sutra remains one of the holiest texts. In chapter 23 of the sutra, the Medicine King bodhisattva offered of his own body. He “anointed his body with fragrant oil… and calling on his transcendental powers, [he] set fire to his body…” following this it is recorded that “The Buddhas in the worlds simultaneously spoke out in praise, saying: ‘Excellent, excellent, good man! This is true diligence.’”[2]

Many scholars of Buddhist texts maintain that this and other passages and stories should be referenced in metaphoric or symbolic terms. However, the idea of self-immolation remains concrete in the minds of many Buddhists. The great controversy surrounding self-immolation lies in the tension between religious, altruistic suicide and the Buddhist doctrine of non-violence. Within the context of this debate, many prominent Buddhist scholars and historians (mostly within the Mahāyāna tradition) have attempted to justify the act of self-immolation as it existed historically and as it is continually practiced today.

Modern practices of Mahāyāna Buddhism continue to contain instances of self-immolation. Thich Nhat Hanh, a prominent Buddhist scholar, said in a letter addressed to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “During the ceremony of ordination, as practiced in the Mahāyāna tradition, the monk candidate is required to burn one, or more, small spots on his body in taking the vow to observe the 250 rules of a bhikshu, to live the life of a monk, to attain enlightenment and to devote his life to the salvation of all beings.”[3]

The reasoning behind this letter comes from the most famous instance of self-immolation in our modern history, the burning of Thich Quang Duc in the streets of Saigon in 1963 in protest to various anti-Buddhist reforms in the Diem government.

This first act of self-immolation occurred at a busy downtown intersection in Saigon, on 11 June 1963, and was widely. The monk, seventy-three-year-old Thich Quang Duc, sat down in the lotus position in a busy intersection and had gasoline poured over him by two fellow monks. As a large crowd of Buddhists and reporters watched, he lit a match and, over the course of a few moments, burned to death.

Malcome Browne’s award-winning photograph of Duc, in the sitting position, with large flames billowing behind him, is what many people recall of the Vietnam conflict in 1963. David Halberstam, a reporter for the New York Times covering the war in Vietnam, gave the following account:

I was to see that sight again, but once was enough. Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly. Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think…. As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.[4]

Despite the fact that this event took place during a huge news-week as the civil rights movement in the United States was reaching a peak, as the week progressed, Duc's death
and the subsequent demonstrations were covered by western, primarily American, media in greater detail.

President Kennedy received the famous picture of Duc the day that it happened. As a result, Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation accelerated and increased Buddhist protest movements throughout Vietnam. The act led to the overthrow of the Diem regime in South Vietnam in November of 1963 and helped to change public opinion against the American backed South Vietnamese government and its war against the communist supported Viet Cong.

Duc is not the only one who immolated himself during the Vietnam era. Along with six other monks was a nun named Nhat Chi Mai, a lay disciple of Thich Nhat Hanh. On May 16, 1967, she burned herself to death outside the Tu Nghiem Temple. In a letter to the U.S. Government she wrote:

I offer my body as a torch

to dissipate the dark

to waken love among men

to give peace to Vietnam

the one who burns herself for peace.[5]

In a letter to her master, Hanh, she wrote, “Don’t worry too much. We will have peace soon.”[6]
Despite the apparent political success, the act of self-immolation is difficult for the western, Christian mind to comprehend. Many westerners, at the time, viewed the act as the workings of a crazed, religious zealot. Even in protest, the act of suicide is seen by the West as immoral. Thich Nhat Hanh said

…the world has nurtured many doubts and invented a great many hypotheses about the Buddhists of Vietnam. Most Westerners have very little knowledge of what seems to them a strange unorthodox religion. They tend to accept the stereotype of ‘monks’ as uneducated, superstitious indigents who shave their heads, forgo meat, and recite prayers for salvation from rebirth.[7]

Similar to prominent Western thought, the act of suicide is viewed by Buddhists as immoral. Buddhism is not only about caring for others but also about maintaining a healthy body and mind. “Therefore, suicide is seen as morally wrong and will result in negative karmic consequences.... To take one's own life, is also to destroy the advantage that human life affords for spiritual progress, even for gaining enlightenment”8]

Thich Nhat Hnah described the act of Duc’s self-immolation as follows:

The press spoke then of suicide, but in the essence, it is not. It is not even a protest. What the monks said in the letters they left before burning themselves aimed only at alarming, at moving the hearts of the oppressors, and at calling the attention of the world to the suffering endured then by the Vietnamese. To burn oneself by fire is to prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance…. 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…. To express will by burning oneself, therefore, is not to commit an act of destruction but to perform an act of construction, that is, to suffer and to die for the sake of one’s people. This is not suicide.[9]

Thich Nhat Hanh continues to explain why Thich Quang Duc’s self-immolation was not suicide, which goes against the Buddhist teachings of non-violence:

Suicide is an act of self-destruction, having as causes the following: (1) lack of courage to live and to cope with difficulties; (2) defeat by life and loss of all hope; (3) desire for nonexistence….. The monk who burns himself has lost neither courage nor hope; nor does he desire nonexistence. On the contrary, he is very courageous and hopeful and aspires for something good in the future. He does not think that he is destroying himself; he believes in the good fruition of his act of self-sacrifice for the sake of others…. I believe with all my heart that the monks who burned themselves did not aim at the death of their oppressors but only at a change in their policy. Their enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred, and discrimination which lie within the heart of man.[10]

Self-immolation can be best thought of as a way of sacrificing one’s own self in the name of ending suffering. In that sense, self-immolation goes much further beyond the idea of a religious practice or a political statement, and instead becomes a spiritual plea for peace. The basis behind self-immolation, according to Hanh appears to be on the fundamental concept of compassion, that that violent nature of the death is outweighed by their motives. Hanh said of Duc’s immolation

The Venerable Thich Quang Duc awakened a whole population by his act of sacrifice. Many westerners did not understand the meaning of the act, and think of it as violent. On the contrary, it was a manifestation of his willingness to suffer for the sake of the enlightenment of people. In its essence it does not differ from the act of Christ in his death on the Cross. Accepting the most extreme suffering of his body, Thich Quang Duc burned himself and in so doing created the fire of consciousness and compassion in the hearts of people.[11]

The act of burning by use of fire has deep symbolism in many schools of Buddhist thought. Thich Tri Quang said that "burning oneself to death is the noblest form of struggle which symbolizes the spirit of non-violence of Buddhism." Dr. Peter Della Santina wrote in Myth and Symbolism that “Fire often surrounds the deities. Light is an important medium for identification between the meditator and the visualized forms of the deities. Fire and light are very important and meaningful elements of our human experience… In the Vajrayana tradition, fire stands for the flames that consume and destroy ignorance.”[12]

In the first chapter of the Lotus Sutra the use of fire is emphasized. It is said that the “Buddha emitted a bright light beam from his brow which shined eighteen hundred territories to the east.”[13]

In the Teachings of Honmon Butsuryusu: How to O-Kyuji (to adorn the altar) it is said:

The light from his brow indicates that all things, happenings and realities contained in the fundamental truth (the true form of existence in this world) have been clarified by Buddha's wisdom of enlightenment. As the light is a symbol of Buddha's "Chie" (working of the mind so as to capture the true nature of reality, and then to realize the truth, or wisdom of enlightenment) when one is to kindle the candles, the incense sticks, or during the cleaning of the altar, recall the significance of the light and pray that Buddha's "Chie" be passed on to you.

The lamplight should always be kept on because the world of Buddha is a bright, shining place. Therefore, it is inappropriate to keep the altar in darkness.[14]

In Kukai’s Shingon Buddhism, The Great Sun Goddess, Amaterasu, is a central figure. The fire ritual (Goma or Homa)[15] is an important and integral part of the Shingon school of thought. During this ritual, the head priest feeds the fire with various types of oils, seeds, and small cedar sticks. The sticks may be purchased for the intentions of gaining answers to prayers or wishes. It is believed that the smoke carries the wishes and intentions to the heavens.

In the case of self-immolation, it is believed that the light will illuminate a world shrouded in darkness and that the smoke will carry a plea for peace into the heavens. Charles Orzech in a 1994 article, "Provoked Suicide,” is able to draw the conclusion that Duc was acting through pure Bodhisattva motivation. He concludes that "Quang Duc was seeking to preach the Dharma to enlighten both Diem and his followers and John Kennedy and the American people."[16]

In this light, the act of Duc and other Buddhist self-immolation could fall upon the revered Buddhist doctrine of Upāya, or “expedient means.” Upāya calls upon the use of all means necessary to trigger insight, or to bring about enlightenment and wisdom in others. In most cases, the use of Upāya cannot contradict the fundamental teachings of the Buddha, one of the most important of which is non-violence. But, as discussed many Buddhist texts, in an effort to bring about a greater good, the use of violence is tolerated, or the karmic retribution generated by the violence is tolerated to bring about a greater good.

In cases of self-immolation it seems apparent that the monks or nuns are completely aware of the karmic retribution entitled to them upon their rebirth. It is in the context of compassion that immolation must be observed, that they are willing to undergo suffering, and in essence, the threat of damnation to bring about the enlightenment of others. The Bodhisattva’s way of life is as follows

As long as space remains,
As long as sentient beings remain,
Until then, may I too remain,
And dispel the miseries of the world.

In this context, Buddhism is full of literature containing the sacrifice of the Bodhisattva. In the Lotus Sutra, a bodhisattva named Sarvasattvapriyadarsana chooses to pay homage to a Buddha who has passed away by completely burning away both of his arms. A Buddha then said, “He undertook the practice of giving by abandoning his body immeasurable hundreds of thousand of times… If there is anyone who sets forth and wishes to attain the highest enlightenment, he should pay homage…by burning either a finger or a toe.”[17] Followed this example, in the year 1034 “two enlightened Zen monks, Nghiem Bao-Tinh and Pham Minh-Tam, burned themselves in tribute to the Buddhadharma.”[18]

In a Jataka Tales, a series of tales containing the historical Buddha’s previous lives, there is one entitled the Hungry Tigress which goes as follows:

Once there was a great king named Maharatha and he had three fine sons, Mahapranada, Mahadeva and Mahasattva. As they walked in the forest one day, the three princes came upon a tigress and her seven cubs. Exhausted by hunger and thirst, the tigress was hardly able to move and Tiger looked as if she would soon die. The three brothers were greatly disturbed by the sight of this poor tigress and wondered what they could do. Of the three, Mahasattva was moved to great compassion and asked his brothers to leave him a while.

When they were gone, Mahasattva laid himself down in front of the tigress, hoping she would feed and drink on his body. But she was too weak. Realizing this, Mahasattva took a piece of sharp bamboo and slit his own throat, making it easy for the tigress to feed on his blood and thereafter eat his flesh.[19]

Another story about a monk Seng-fu reads as follows.

[Seng-fu] silently thought of cutting off his relation with this world. At that time, there was a robbery in a village. A male child was captured by the robbers, who planned to remove its heart and liver in order to offer them to a god. Seng-fu was strolling on the road near the village at the time, and when he saw the robbery, he inquired about the abduction. Thereupon, he took off his robe and tried to redeem the child by his own body. The bandits ignored his proposal. Seng-fu argues: “Are the chief viscera of an adult unusable for sacrifice?”

“When you cannot give up your own body, what is the use of using big words?” replied the bandits.

Seng-fu then thought: “When the time comes, this illusory body of mine must die. If I use my death to rescue the child, I shall be alive though my body may perish.” He therefore snatched a knife from the bandits and cut open his chest down to his navel.[20]

These are prime examples of the emphasis that compassion plays in the Buddhist religion. Among many monastic traditions is the idea that the abandonment of ones body is the ultimate expression of faith and piety. They believe that ones own body is the most acceptable offering to the Buddha. Sacrifice coupled with compassion is supremely embodied in the character of the Bodhisattva, whose entire existence revolves around the enlightment of all sentient beings.
Thich Quang Duc is seen in many Buddhist circles as having attained the rank of these venerated Bodhisattvas. After he carried out his self-immolation he was cremated. Legend has it that his heart would not burn. As a result, his heart is considered holy and is in the custody of the Reserve Bank of Vietnam.[21] Whether or not these particular myths is true, it shows the admiration and reverence which is showed towards the Bodhisattva and their calling.

The acts of immolation which occurred in 1963 and after have been the inspiration behind a variety of Buddhist historians who have sought to justify the actions religiously in the context of Buddhism. Various attempts have been made to explain why suicide is prohibited for the unenlightened but permitted for the enlightened. In 1965 Lamotte wrote:

Suicide is justified in the persons of the Noble Ones who have already cut off desire and by so doing neutralised their actions by making them incapable of producing further fruit. From the point of view of early Buddhism, suicide is a normal matter in the case of the Noble Ones who, having completed their work, sever their last link with the world and voluntarily pass into Nirvana, thus definitively escaping from the world of rebirths.[22]

Lamotte, in the remainder of his text, attempts to prove that there is nothing wrong with taking ones own life if it is not done in fear, anger, or hate.

Jan Yün Hua, a prominent Buddhist scholar, has made it his work to discover if the actions of self-immolators are historically justifiable within the context of ancient Buddhist texts.
Hua says in a work entitled Buddhist Self-Immolation in Medieval China that “‘religious suicide’ may more appropriately be termed ‘self-immolation,’ for the actions of these self-immolated monks was one which brought their lives to an end with a spiritual motivation and a strong sense of determination. Thus self-immolation signifies something deeper than merely the legal concept of suicide or the physical action of self-destruction.”[23]

Hua provides a study of ancient Chinese texts such as Kao-seng-chuan (“Biographies of Eminent Monks”) by Hüi-chiao (596-667), the Hsu Kao-seng-chuan (“Further Biographies of Eminent Monks”) by Tau-hsüan (919-1001), and the Sung Kao-seng-chuan (“Sung Collection of Biographies of Eminent Monks”) by Tsan-ning. In these works, Hua found record of more than fifty monks how committed the act of self-immolation. Interestingly, in these works, the word for their immolation is Wang-shen or Yi-shen which is used in the same context as monks who have abandoned their bodies in defense of their religion.[24]

Hua said that “many of the biographies of these self-immolated Buddhists are soberly historical.” From this he concludes that “One can clearly see that the Chinese Buddhist historians regarded such action as virtuous and worthy of emulation. This view was also approved by the Buddhists of Japan and in now approved in Vietnam.”[25]

Hua finds that the act of self-immolation could, in some ways, be compared to some ancient ascetic traditions, such as refraining from food unto death. This was seen historically as a disdain for the body in favor of the life of the mind and wisdom, a sacrifice of the body in order for one to attain enlightenment. In each of these cases, Hua makes that argument that sacrifice was proper and important in order to bring about a greater good.

An understanding of the fundamental concept of sacrifice as it plays out in the Buddhist religion is vital for one seeking to understand self-immolation. Dr. David J. Kalupahana of the University of Hawaii said

The ideal of renunciation is therefore emphasized throughout in the Buddhist texts…It may not be far from the truth to say that this attitude of renunciation is behind every moral virtue. Not only those who leave everyday life and embrace the life of a monk, but everyone, is expected to practice renunciation to the extent to which he is able. Without such sacrifices, there cannot be perfect harmony in society. Thus, even the simplest of virtues, such as generosity…cannot be practiced without an element of renunciation or sacrifice.[26]

Buddhism offers its practitioners the opportunity for different levels of involvement on the spiritual path towards enlightenment. This ranges from one who practices with minimal sacrifice primarily to achieve personal spiritual gain to one who sacrifices his or her entire life with the hope of benefiting humanity. As a person moves along this spectrum from little to great sacrifice, one also gains a growing concern for the spiritual welfare of all sentient beings.

Buddhist monks and nuns are especially required to sacrifice. Most immediately, they sacrifice the comforts of a life with family outside their monastic community. They sacrifice by abstaining from certain substances and activities, vowing to live a celibate life, and engaging in activities which will provide them with increased understanding and wisdom. “The role of the monk is to maintain a certain purity, largely through keeping an elaborate set of vows. Such purity renders the monk as a suitable “field of merit” to whom laypeople can make offerings, thereby accumulating the favorable karma that will result in a happy rebirth in the next life.”[27]
Trijang Rinpoche said, “Although the actual practice of generating bodhicitta [The feeling of responsibility for the liberation of all sentient beings] must be a compassion that cannot tolerate the suffering of others, to develop this you must first be aware of how you yourself are overwhelmed by suffering.[28]

Tao-hsüan, the author of Hsü Kao-seng-chuan (“Further Biographies of Eminent Monks”) wrote

So far as my humble knowledge goes, to follow chastity and to regard life lightly has been a difficult task since ancient days. “To escape by improper means” is an easy way even at present. In the biographies of dedicated persons several categories of examples are established; in the Classics words to describe virtuous and mean men shine forth. These serve to warn and admonish ordinary people, and to enlighten the spiritual ones. Only the Way (Tao) occupies the highest point, only the Virtue (Te) produces things. Thus these [those who immolate themselves] were able to forget both success and failure, and to dismiss both right and wrong. They understood the root and source of the fluctuating and the attachments. They comprehended the Law of illusion. Because of this, the intelligent person knows that the body is an empirical combination, like dust, and has no mature of its own. He considers that life and calculation are similar to flowing water, and phenomenon is merely the reflection of mind. Therefore, all beings being illusory, how can a wise man preserve himself for ever?[29]

Tao-hsüan considers those who immolate themselves as being wise as to the impermanence of all things. He says that they understood the “source of the fluctuating and the attachments…. [and that] they comprehend the Law of illusion.” Tao-hsüan continues to say that “The body is the embodiment of accumulation. Because the body is the most important thing of life, to destroy the body is the only proper treatment.”[30]

Tsan-ning said in Kao-seng-chuan (“Sung Collection of Biographies of Eminent Monks”):

To give away the thing that is difficult to part with,
Is the best offering amongst the alms.
Let this impure and sinful body,
Turn into something like a diamond.[31]

These last couple works show a belief that the sacrifice of a body can bring about great things (diamonds). They consider self-immolators to be great examples for other Buddhists to follow.
Although self-immolation was accepted in some ancient Buddhist traditions, primarily those existing in feudal China (as seen with the previous authors), many areas, primarily India, condoned the act. I-ching (635-713), a prominent Buddhist historian said during his travel in India that cases of religious suicide were regarded by Buddhists as misled or heretical.[32]
I-ching continues to say that “It was the Bodhisattva’s work of salvation to offer his body to a hungry tiger… It is not our power to imitate a Bodhisattva.” He says that such acts of self-destruction are “entirely out of harmony with the Vinaya canons,” and that “if one destroys life in such a way, the great object of one’s existence is lost,” and that the loss is a “sin (which cannot be undone), just as a broken stone cannot be united.”[33]

In this light, there seems to be a great contradiction between ancient Chinese and Indian texts. Anciently, just as today there was a raging debate as to the validity of the practice of self-immolation. Self-immolation and other practices of altruistic suicide existed anciently and are continuing to manifest themselves in modern times, as seen with the sacrifice of Duc and others during the Vietnam era.

This tradition of self-immolation, most likely, has its roots dating back to China and has continued throughout different schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism. The apparent schism within Buddhism on the subject is most likely manifested with the differences between Theravada traditions (ex: India, Thailand, Burma, etc.) which are more primarily concerned with personal enlightenment and traditions of Mahāyāna Buddhism (ex: China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc.) which revere the practice of selfless sacrifice and compassion.

The debate existing between the Buddhist doctrine of non-violence and acts of religious or altruistic suicide can be justified historically within the Mahāyāna tradition. Although difficult to understand from a Western perspective, within the scope of Mahāyāna Buddhism, practitioners of self immolators have existed historically and such have been widely revered in their own circles.


[1] Poem by Ngo An (Vietnamese Zen monk, 11th Century AD)
[2] The Lotus Sutra, Chapter 23
[3] Thich Nhat Hanh. Vietnam: The Lotus in the Sea of Fire, Appendices 2, In Search of the Enemy of Man by the Venerable Nhat Hanh, 1 June 1965. Hill and Wang, Inc. 1967
[4] David Halberstam. New York Times. 1965:211
[5] Nhat Chi Mai, "A Letter to the U.S. Government," in Cambridge Women's Peace Collective, My Country Is the Whole World: An Anthology of Women's Work on Peace and War (London: Pandora Press, 1984), p. 178
[6] Thich Nhat Hanh, Love in Action: Writings on Nonviolent Social Change (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1993), p. 44.
[7] Vietnam, the Lotus in the Sea of Fire, p. 9 -10. Hill and Wang, Inc. 1967.
[8] About.com, Buddhism: Buddhism and Suicide
[9] Thich Nhat Hanh. Vietnam: The Lotus in the Sea of Fire, Appendices 2, In Search of the Enemy of Man by the Venerable Nhat Hanh
[10] Ibid.
[11] Thich Nhat Hanh, “Love in Action” quoted in Buddhism and Zen, p. 174
[12] Dr. Peter Della Santina, Myth and Symbolism
[13] The Lutus Sutra, Chapter 1
[14] Honmon Butsuryusu, Teachings of Honmon Butsuryusu: How to O-Kyuji
[15] Image found at www3.la.psu.edu/textbooks/ 480/graphics/ch7/04.jpg
[16] Charles Orzech, Provoked Suicide, 1994
[17] The Lotus Sutra, p. 297-298
[18] Thich Nhat Hanh, Buddhism and Zen, p. 67
[19] Jataka Tales: The Hungry Tigress. Found at http://www.watthai.net/talon/jataka/jataka.htm
[20] Ching-ch’ao, op. cit., p. 404b-c
[21] Schecter 1967: 179
[22] La motte, E. (1987) "Religious Suicide in Early Buddhism," Buddhist Studies Review 4, p. 105-126 (first published in French in 1965)
[23] Jan Yün Hua, Buddhist Self-Immolation in Medieval China, p. 243
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid. p. 244
[26] David J. Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy, Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1976, p. 60
[27] The Story of the Buddha, p. 136
[28] Trijang Rinpoche, The Three Scopes, p. 42
[29] Tao-hsüan, Hsü Kao-seng-chuan, T. 2060, p. 684c, 11. 4-11
[30] Ibid.
[31] Tsan-ning, Kao-seng-chuan, T. 2061, p. 710a, section 7, Yi-shen p’ien
[32] I-ching, A record of the Buddhist Religion as Practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago, translation: J. Takakusu, Oxford, 1896, p. 198.
[33] Ibid.

Vo Nguyen Giap

Nui Lua, a Vietnamese phrase translating roughly to "snow covered volcano" is used in describing the seemingly calm exterior and burning, passionate inside of one of the twentieth century’s most influential leaders, Vo Nguyen Giap. He has been described him as forceful, arrogant, impatient and dogmatic, but his influence in the Vietnamese struggle for independence is unrivaled by any, with the plausible exception of Ho Chi Mihn himself.

Giap was born in An Xa in the Quang Binh province to a reasonably wealthy, middle class family. He enrolled in a French school called Quoc Hoc in Hue around the age of 16, but was expelled for his continued involvement in a revolutionary youth movement called Tan Viet Cach Mang Dang. At the age of 21 he enrolled at a university in Hanoi and received a degree after three years. During his time at Hanoi University he converted to the Communist ideology.

In September 1939, the French officially banned all communist practices and Giap was forced to take refuge in China. It was at this time that he first met Ho Chi Mihn, at the Chingsi Conference in May 1941. Here, the Viet Mihn were officially organized for the purpose of liberating Vietnam from oppression.

Describing himself as self-taught, Giap never received any formal military training. He began leading a group of 34 guerillas, but by the end of his career he was commander of the world’s third largest army.

After commanding Viet Mihn forces against the Japanese during World War II, mostly with the help of the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Giap turned the offensive against the French and then subsequently against the United States. He turned the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) into a potent and effective fighting force.

The success of the Viet Mihn as a fighting force is a direct result of Vo Nguyen Giap. He was a successful leader for primarily three reasons; His unwavering, charismatic belief in the ideal of Vietnamese nationalism, his ability to read and act appropriately to changes in political climate, and his practical knowledge of how to militarily conduct a people’s war, including the logistics of mass troop and supply transportation.

In an essay entitled General Vo Nguyen Giap as Military Man and Poet, Cicil B. Curry said, “I have met and talked with Giap…. He is not a nice man. Giap is best known for his fanatical obsession with freeing his homeland from western domination and uniting it under the communist rule of Ha Noi.” Despite this, Giap is said by his compatriots to have a charisma and passion that was welcomed and inspiring to those around him. A poem entitled Kiss which is attributed to him was found in a dead soldiers copy book. The poem shows the depth of his commitment.

The earth bore you here.
To bring beauty.
The earth bore me here
To love you deeply.

In love people kiss.
The sweetness they would not miss.
My heart is passionate for you
Still I must go to battle.

My love, it is possible
That I may die in combat
The lips torn there by bullets
Might never be kissed [again] by yours.

Even if I die, my love,
I love you, though I am unable
To kiss you with the lips
Of a slave.
(Translation: Ho Thi Xuan Hong, Nguyen Hai Quoc, Nguyen Khac Niem)

This poem shows his dedication to the conflict as well as the respect and inspiration that individual soldiers must have had in order to personally carry such literature. This also is, perhaps, a shadow of the feelings that Giap, himself, may have experienced with the loss of his wife, Quang Thai, who was tortured and killed under French captivity.

The personal relationships based on mutual understanding and suffering which Giap shared with his men helped to strengthen the cause of the resistance and provided a tangible sense of fraternity. Giap said, “Literature can and must elevate a man’s soul,” and throughout his career, Giap coupled his skills in literature along with his own patriotic sentiments to become a tangible embodiment of the Vietnamese cause.

Throughout the Vietnam conflict Giap wrote and published many works. Many of these addressed the issues of Vietnamese nationalism and assessments of the war. He understood the role that literature played in, not only increasing morale among his troops, but also in spreading ideology and promoting Vietnamese nationalism on an international stage.

Along with literature, Giap also expressed his feelings though his skills as an orator. During a tribute to Nguyen Trai, a fable Vietnamese hero’s, sixth hundred birthday, Giap said he was “very proud of his beautiful country with its imposing mountains and rivers, its abundance of produce, proud of its old civilization and unique lifestyle, proud of its brilliant and heroic history of resisting foreign aggression.” He said of the Viet Mihn’s struggle against the French that “talents were like leaves in the autumn, and heroes appeared like the dawn" (Vo Nguyen Giap as Military Man and Poet).

Continuing along this line, Giap said in a later publication that, “In its [the Viet Mihn’s] ranks are the finest sons of Vietnam, the most sincere patriots from all revolutionary classes, from all nationalities—majority as well as minority people” (The Military Art or People’s War, p. 109). Giap truly respected the sacrifice of his men and was respected in turn.

Giap’s correspondence with his men always possessed “emotional statement of longing for an absent loved one, yearning for reunion, while simultaneously declaiming the necessity of fulfilling his warrior's responsibilities of battle and possible death” (Vo Nguyen Giap as Military Man and Poet). For this reason, Giap had the trust of his men. They believed in his ability to lead them to victory and looked to him as not only as a figure-head in some obscure war, but as the backbone of a people’s war.

Giap, in a 26 part television special entitled People’s Century gave his definition of a “people’s war”. He said

It was a war for the people by the people. For the people because the war's goals are the people's goals— goals such as independence, a unified country, and the happiness of its people.... And by the people— well that means ordinary people— not just the army but all people.

Giap’s charismatic ability to relate to his people and lead them through the conflict was essential to the Vietnamese nationalist cause. He knew that the potential success to Vietnamese nationalism lay in motivating the people to war.

The Vietnamese people have a heritage of fighting off foreign aggression. Over their history they have “repelled thousands of invaders” from the Chinese in the 13th century to a variety of tribal revolts. Thomas Hodgkins, an English historian, noted in the journal Race and Class that “Vietnamese peasants long ago acquired— and have passed on from generation to generation— a grasp of revolutionary methods, a knowledge of what to do in a revolutionary situation” (People’s Century Interview). Giap had a perfect understanding of Vietnamese heritage in the regard. He knew how to tap Vietnam’s most valuable resource, its people.
However, the difference between these early struggles and nationalist struggles beginning in the 19th century is that, where as before they were fighting invaders on the same economic basis as themselves, with the introduction of the French colonial system they were fighting against a western imperial power. It was for this reason, more then any other, that it was necessary for a uniting of the people under charismatic leadership with military and political genius.

Lieut. Gen Hoang Van Thai, one of the Senior Military Chiefs during the struggle said in his book, Some Aspects of Guerrilla Warfare in Vietnam, that their movement was organized on “correct political and military lines… [with] creative application of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete situation in Viet Nam” (p. 243). Thai continues to address strategies of guerrilla warfare saying it is a “form of struggle of the large masses of the people, of the local military and paramilitary forces which are weak or relatively weak, against much better equipped enemy troops” (p.242). Both Thai and Giap understood the role that guerrilla warfare would play in the Vietnamese struggle for independence. They knew that guerrilla warfare was the primary characteristics of a people’s war. Giap said, “We had to resort to different measures, some of which are quite simple, like hiding in man-holes and evacuating to the countryside. And we fought back with all our forces and with every kind of weapon” (CNN Cold War Interview).
The revolution’s leadership aimed “…at maintaining and strengthening combativeness, uniting true patriotism with proletarian internationalism, developing revolutionary heroism and the great tradition of our army summed up in its slogan: “Resolved to fight, determined to win” (Vo Nguyen Giap, The Military Art of Peoples War, p.111).

The nationalist movement was determined to win at all costs. They used any means necessary to bring about their goals. Giap was willing to exploit any new diplomatic development or capitalize on any weakness that he viewed in the enemy. Giap said in a CNN interview about the U.S. leadership during the revolution that “They didn't understand our will to maintain independence and equality between nations even though these are stated in President Jefferson's manifestation. And so they made mistakes.”

Giap continued to say that the U.S. did not understand the concept of defeat. That they thought that they could win the war through pure dominant force and that they never understood the true nature of the conflict. He said, concerning the Americans, “They could not win. How could they win? As our president said, there was nothing more precious than independence and freedom. We had the spirit that we would govern our own nation; we would rather sacrifice than be slaves” (CNN Cold War Interview).

When all is said and done, it could be said that the war in Vietnam was a fight that could not be won by body count of by the occupation of territory. In this type of conflict, true victory came only from controlling the hearts and the minds of the people. Giap said, “The Vienamese people’s war of liberation proved that in insufficiently equipped people’s army, but an army fighting for a just cause, can, with appropriate strategy and tactics, combine the conditions needed to conquer a modern army of aggressive imperialism” (Vo Nguyen Giap, Military Art of Peoples War, p. 95). Giap had an appropriate appreciation for his people’s struggle for independence that made him able to guide them to independence through his charismatic leadership.

Along with being able to motivating his people to war, Giap was able to adequately understand the international political climate upon which the war was staged. This is perfectly portrayed in his broadcast, The Big Victory; The Great Task, on 17 – 20 September, 1967 where he talks about the political crisis that the U.S. was in during the 1966-1967 campaign season

Since they have been tied firmly to the war of aggression in Viet Nam and have suffered one failure after another, the U.S. imperialists have increasingly revealed their weaknesses and flaws. Revolutionary people the world over have more clearly realized that the U.S. imperialists are wealthy but not strong and that their economic and military potential, although great, are nonetheless limited. The U.S. imperialists are being defeated by a small but heroic people. The more they prolong the war of aggression in Viet Nam, the more the U.S. imperialists are isolated politically in the world.

In this work, he continues to discuss American involvement in both international and domestic theatres. He discusses the troubles ensuing in the U.S., in the Middle East and the Near East, the military victories of Israel, and the Latin American struggles against American intervention. On U.S. domestic issues, Giap discusses “the U.S. Negroes’ boiling and widespread struggle” and the problems of increasing protest that the Johnson administration has continually endured. He said, “In the U.S. itself, the Johnson government is confronted with the contradictions among the U.S. ruling clique and the U.S. people’s increasingly strong protest” (The Big Victory; The Great Task, p. 222).

Giap logically analyses the U.S. position and their future objectives; that they will increase their involvement in the war, increasing bombing raids, and stepping up strikes on logistical targets in hopes to break the stalemate and rapidly end the war.

After an appropriate and lengthy assessment of the U.S. political situation Giap then emphasizes steps that they must take to counter those aims and to solidly defeat their enemy. In this particular situation, the call was to further the stalemate, to repeatedly harass the enemy and destroy as many large units as possible. On the political front, their goal was to continue “striving to strengthen and develop the liberated areas and to mobilize more manpower and wealth to further step up and lead the resistance to final victory” (p.227).

Although this is only an analysis of 1966-1967, it is a prime example of the kind of analytical thinking that Giap did throughout the nationalist conflict, both with the French and with the Americans. He was able to read the situation on multiple levels, from the international level to that of a single guerrilla fighter under his command. With his political mind he was able to exploit weaknesses in foreign policy through a variety of channels.

In addition, Giap was consistently involved in the process of reading and countering the movements of his enemy. He was a master at interpreting enemy forces and reading the intentions of enemy commanders. No where is this more brilliantly displayed than in Giap’s most recognized victory, the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1953.

General Navarre, the French commander at the time, realized that time was running out for the French forces to make a resounding victory. He wished to draw the Viet Mihn forces into a large scale battle, convinced that the French would win the conflict. As the spot, Navarre set up a defensive position in a valley which would block Viet Mihn forces returning from campaigns to their safe-houses in neighboring Laos.

Giap was able to see this situation played out in his mind and adapt creatively to the situation. He had his troops disassemble artillery and anti-aircraft weaponry and ammunition and transport it to the ridges surrounding the valley. It is said that thousands of men were used to transport the hundreds of tons of equipment and munitions needed for a prolonged siege using only reinforced bicycles.

Giap concentrated about 8,000 men on these hilltops along with 200 pieces of heavy artillery totaling his forces to around 15,000 men. On May 7, 1954, the French were forced to surrender, unable to support or supply their position, being completely out-gunned from an elevated position. Giap said about the conflict

The enemy wanted to concentrate their forces. We compelled them to disperse. By successively launching strong offensives on the points they had left relatively unprotected, we obliged them to scatter their troops all over the place in order to ward off our blows, and thus created favorable conditions for the attack at Dien Bien Phu (Military Art of People War, p. 91).

Despite his lack of formal military training, Giap was a military genius. As demonstrated with the battle of Dien Bien Phu, he was consistently involved in the process of outthinking his opponent and using every means at his disposal to insure victory. He was flexible in any way that would bring about a victorious end. He was a mastermind at maneuvering and conducting his “people’s war.”

One of Giap’s primary concerns was concentrating all of his assets and constructing them into an effective fighting force towards independence. This was a multifaceted effort involved the aforementioned guerrilla war tactics along with more conventional methods of combat. At each stage of the conflict Giap used all measures at his disposal to ensure a victory for his cause. He said

The enemy mopped up; we fought against mopping-up. They organized supplementary local Vietnamese troops and installed puppet authorities; we firmly upheld people’s power, overthrew straw men, eliminated traitors, and carried out active propaganda to bring about the disintegration of the supplementary forces (Military Art of Peoples War, p. 87-88).

Perhaps the greatest measure to Giap’s military prowess was his ability to transport material and personnel. As mentioned earlier, the success of his forces at Dien Bien Phu was due primarily to his ability to transport artillery and equipment to an elevated position using primarily primitive means. Transportation would be a major aspect of the Vietnam conflict from this point and on throughout the American involvement. No where is this more evident then in the construction, use, and maintenance of the Ho Chi Mihn Trail.

The Ho Chi Minh Trail was a very extensive system; it started with a trail but later became a road, or a series of roads. “And also there were the extensive systems of gas pipelines and communications lines, and routes on rivers and across the sea” (CNN Interview). The trail was one of the key targets throughout many of the U.S. bombing campaigns and was the backbone for the resistance. Giap, understood the significance of the trail. He said “We did everything possible to keep the whole system going. I visited many important points which were subjected to many B-52 bombings 23 out of 24 hours a day; we had many teams working toward maintaining the operation” (CNN Cold War Interview).

Through use of the Ho Chi Mihn trail, the Viet Mihn was able to supply and remain in communication with resistance forces in the south. Military planning and nation-wide strikes were assessable primarily because of this trail. The Tet Offensive is a perfect example of such a coordinated, nationwide strike that would only be available with advanced communication and transportation that the trial provided.

Many say that the Tet Offensive was the instance that changed U.S. public opinion and won the war for the Viet Mihn. The offensive showed ability of the Ho Chi Mihn Trail to transport materials and personnel, as well as the orders and information needed to perform such a large coordinated offensive. Along with this, the Tet offensive also emphasizes Giap and the resistances’ skill at fighting the war and their resolve to win.

Walter Cronkite is seen by many to have been the embodiment of U.S. public opinion about Vietnam. In a CBS broadcast to America following the offensive he said

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in a stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion…. It is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out, then, will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could (A Reporter’s Life, p. 258).

Bill Moyers, the President’s news secretary, recalled that when President Lyndon Johnson heard the report he said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America” (p. 259).

The use of the Ho Chi Mihn Trail was essential to bringing about the Tet Offensive which would become the turning point of the war. In addition, Giap once again demonstrated his ability to read the situation and to act upon it. He said about the conflict, “The truth is that we saw things in their entirety and knew that in the end, we had to de-escalate the war. At that point, the goal of the offensive was to try to de-escalate the war” (People’s Century Interview). At another point Giap said

It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory. For a big battle we always figured out the objectives, the targets, so it was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war. But what was more important was to de-escalate the war -- because at that time the American were escalating the war -- and to start negotiations. So that was the key goal of that campaign. (CNN Cold War Interview)

Many historians have tried to debunk Giap and the resistances’ success in the Tet Offensive during which the sustained heavy losses. However, from Giap’s perspective and with a view of their goals behind the offensive, it can be seen only as a success looking backward with a historical perspective. Giap ultimately said that the greatest impact of the Tet Offensive was bringing the Americans back to the negotiation table because he, in turn, had brought the war “to the living rooms of Americans back home” (CNN Interview).

Giap, throughout the Vietnamese struggle for independence, continually showed that he was the man for the job. Although containing what some would can an abrasive personality, he was able, on numerous occasions, to lead his forces to victory on the battlefield.

Giap exemplified the intense nationalist zeal that was characteristic of the Vietnam conflict. Because of this, he was a perfect leader for the resistance. He was able to empathize with his men and motivate them through his skills as both a writer and orator. His charismatic leadership made him endearing to his followers and his perpetual energy drove men to follow and obey his orders.

Along with this, Giap was able to read political climates and exploit them to the benefit of the resistance. As was the case with the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and also his assessment of the American involvement in 1966-1967, he was politically adept at reading and countering military maneuvers and seeing the results of each action.

He was far-sighted in all of his planning, including the building and maintenance of the Ho Chi Mihn Trail. As with the Tet Offensive, Giap’s usage of the trail and all means necessary to plan and execute a nationwide resistance prove his versatility and adeptness as a leader.
Giap, was a key figure in the resistance, he was the target of many American strike teams sent to remove him from command. With his skill, his experience, and his resolve to fight, General Vo Nguyen Giap was one the most important figures throughout all of the Vietnamese nationalist movement, working together with Ho Chi Mihn to facilitate and achieve his goals of a free and unified Vietnam.


Cicil B. Curry. General Vo Nguyen Giap as Military Man and Poet. http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Currey _Giap.html

Cicil B. Curry. Victory at Any Cos. Cicil B. Curry: 1996.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/victoryatanycost.htm

CNN.com. CNN Cold War Interview with Vo Nguyen Giap. May 1996.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/giap/

General Vo Nguyen Giap. “The Big Victory, the Great Task,” in Nham Dan and Quan Doi Nham Dan. Hanoi: broadcast on 17-20 September 1967

General Vo Nguyen Giap. The Military Art of People’s War. Selected Writings of General Vo Nguyen Giap. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970

Generals Vo Nguyen Giap and Van Tien Dung. How We Won the War. Philadelphia: ReCON Publications, 1976

Hoang Van Thai. Some Aspects of Guerrilla Warfare in Vietnam. Hanoi: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1965

PBS/WBGH. People’s Century Interview with Vo Nguyen Giap, 1998. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/peoplescentury/episodes/
guerrillawars/giaptranscript.html

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Vo Neguyen Giap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguyen_Giap